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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Status
This office action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 20 July 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 11, 16-21, 23, 25 and 29-31 are amended, claims 24, 26-27, and 32 are cancelled, and claims 33-36 are added. This is a Non-Final Office Action
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a session module configured to determine individual meal generation seeds for individual meal generation sessions” in claim 1 and claim 34; “a communication module” in claim 1 and 34, that is configured to, among other things, receive data from a user device; a “meal generator module” in claims 11 and 35 that is configured to receive data, access data, , generate data, and further manipulation of data.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Here, “a session module” is understood to be part of a platform that generates data based on user device/software and third party platform data that comes via the communications channel, and that data is sent to control a robotic system for meal preparation, specification, ¶0044, The communication module can be any wired and/or wireless data connection, ¶0044; ¶0055, the session module, and the communications module and the “meal generation module“ may include “processors, memory, databases, communications circuitry or devices, and/or other components to allow the respective module to provide the functionality described herein.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the second to last line of page 6 of 12, claim 35 recites “wherein generating each the meal comprises:” This is not correct English. For purposes of understanding, this should properly read --wherein generating each of the meals comprises:--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 34 recites “The system of claim 15, further comprising the meal preparation system.” Claim 15 is a meal preparation system, so it is not clear what “further comprising the meal preparation system” further includes. Claim 15 is a system that prepares meals, is thus a meal preparation system, and seems to be therefore redundant and does not further limit the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21-23, 28-31,33, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wragg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0041252)
Regarding claim 11, Wragg teaches a system (see Wragg, ¶¶554-599) comprising:
a user database, configured to store user template data associated with a first user (Wragg, ¶0639, user data is stored and accessed);
a configuration database, configured to store meal generation templates (Wragg, at least, Appendix 2, p. 16) ;
a communications module (Wragg, ¶72, user interface);
a session module, configured to determine individual meal generation seeds for individual meal generation sessions (¶0125-6, 128, meal or ingredient suggestions based on user information);
a meal generator module, wherein the system is configured to:
receive, with the communications module and from a user device associated with the first user, first user data comprising a first meal generation request (¶0072, enter user choice, e.g. “build your own”);
access, with the session module and based on receiving the first meal generation request, the user database to obtain first user template data associated with the first user (Wragg, ¶102, “parameter” to abide by, i.e. “nutritional parameters, food preferences, etc.”; ¶126, smartwatch or phone for users biometric and activity data, ¶582, personalized information)), wherein the first user template data excludes any meal recipes;
generate, with the session module and based on the first user template data and the first user data, a first meal generation seed (meal or ingredient suggestion, ¶0125-8) associated with the first meal generation request, the first meal generation seed excluding any meal recipes (0579, displays list that can then be altered) and comprising nutritional targets in one or more nutritional categories and portion size targets to allow for subsequent automated selection of ingredient categories for from scratch meal generation (¶569, “a computer-implemented system that displays to the consumer a menu or list of meal choices and is configured to enable the consumer to select a meal, and then change the quantity, amount, weight or relative proportion of one or more ingredients in the meal and to display to the consumer how one or more nutritional parameters alter because of that change, to define a customized or personalized meal);
communicate the first meal generation seed to the meal generator module (Wragg, ¶0569, display to the consumer);
select, with the meal generator module and based on receiving the first meal generation seed, a first meal generation template from the configuration database, the first meal generation template specifying a plurality of ingredient categories for subsequent selection of ingredients, the first meal generation template excluding specific meal ingredients (Wragg, ¶0569, select the meal/quantity);
generate, with the meal generator module and based on the first meal generation seed, first meal data in accordance with the first meal generation template, wherein the generating the first meal data comprises:
individually selecting, based on the first meal generation template and the first meal generation seed, a plurality of individual ingredients and portion sizes for each of the plurality of individual ingredients (Wragg, ¶¶, 0574, 0578-579, select ingredients and amount) ; and
determining one or more preparation aspects for the plurality of individual ingredients, wherein a combination of the plurality of individually selected ingredients, the portion sizes of the respective individual ingredients, and the one or more preparation aspects provides nutritional values within a threshold error range of each of the nutritional targets (¶0574, computer-implemented system displays nutritional parameters and ¶575, selects a meal that complies with parameters);
communicate, with the communications module, the first meal data to the user device (¶0578;
receive, with the communications module from the user device, second user data indicating a user selection of the first meal data (¶0579, change amount once first data is selected and it is received); and
communicate, with the communications module, the first meal data to a meal preparation system to cause the meal preparation system to prepare a first meal (¶580, “robotic meal assembly device is then configured to assemble or prepare that customized or personalized meal”).
It is noted that in the rejection of claim 11, Wragg discloses all the features, but he does so in different embodiments and “features” of his invention, as he describes, and these features are summarily taught in Appendix 4, and primarily, for our purposes, on pp. 18-19, ¶¶554-599, and there are nine “features” described. However, in ¶555, he states “Note that each Feature 1-14 may, but does not have to, be combined with one or more of the other Features 1-14. We list also important optional sub-features; note that each optional sub-feature may, but does not have to, be combined with any one or more Features 1-14; and each sub-feature may be combined, but does not have to, with any one or more other sub-features.” In light of all these features working together, and that Wragg teaches all the features individually (even in different “features”) it is thus obvious that Wragg teaches all the limitations of the claim in order to create a more thorough, efficient, and personalized meal generation experience.
Regarding claim 14, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further teach a system wherein the system is further configured to:
delete the first meal generation seed after communication of the first meal data to the meal preparation system. However, depending on the system or appliance, deleting the data that has already been processed may be necessary to make room for the further instruction to be processed by the meal preparation system. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wragg, to delete the first session seed after communication of the first meal data to the meal preparation system, in order to, depending on the system or appliance, make room for any further instruction to be processed by the meal preparation system depending on it memory capacity and to get of any already processed, no longer needed, instructions.
Regarding claim 15, Wragg in view of Benefield teaches all the limitations of claim 11, wherein the meal preparation system comprises an autonomous meal preparation robot (Wragg, figs. 7-9, Abstract, ¶1 “robotic meal preparation system…can be used to automate meal preparation”).
Regarding claim 18, Wragg in view of Benefield all the limitations of claim 11, and discloses a system wherein the first meal generation template specifies a first ingredient category and a second ingredient category (Wragg, can be seen in fig. 3; to have more than one ingredient category).
Regarding claim 19, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, but does not further teach a system wherein the system is further configured to:
update the first user template based on the user selection of the first meal data;
receive, with the communications module from the user device, third user data comprising a second meal generation request;
access, with the session module and based on receiving the second meal generation request, the user database to obtain updated first user template data, wherein the updated first user template data excludes any meal recipes;
determine a second meal generation seed, the second meal generation seed excluding any meal recipes and comprising nutritional targets in one or more nutritional categories and portion size targets to allow for subsequent automated selection of ingredient categories for from scratch meal generation;
communicate the second meal generation seed to the meal generator module;
generate, with the meal generator module and based on the second meal generation seed, second meal data; and
communicate, with the communications module, the second meal data to the user device.
However, in light of the teachings above, particularly Wragg ¶¶554-599, where all the determining and communicating of the different features and capabilities of the system is explained, and seeing that they can all work together (Wragg, ¶555), any further selecting or changing of mind of the operator to have the device receive further instructions to further create templates and seeds would simply be a duplication of parts or rearrangement of parts, (see MPEP §2144.04VI) that is redoing the activities already taught by the machine in order to best serve the operator, and have him or her be able to choose their meal or modify it, or even change their mind adjust the whole thing, and the machine would be capable of receiving further instruction, and to make new templates and seeds in order to accommodate the desires of the customer/operator.
Regarding claim 20, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches wherein the first meal data comprises a plurality of separate from scratch generated meals, and wherein the user selection of the second user data is a selection of one of the plurality of separate from scratch generated meals (Wragg, ¶0579, change amount once first data is selected and it is received; second user data may be alternative ingredient or choices that create meals that were not preprogrammed, and thus would be “from scratch”,) .
Regarding claim 21, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the first meal generation seed is specifically generated in response to the first meal generation request (Wragg, the meal is generated because of the request ¶579, as the request is made and the data is taken and assessed, the seed is made) .
Regarding claim 22, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the first fitness data comprises biometric measurements, activity tracking data, and/or sleep tracking data (Wragg, ¶¶0126,589, “biometric data”).
Regarding claim 23, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 22, as above, but does not further teach a system wherein the first user template data is of a first data shape, the first fitness data is a second data shape, and the first meal generation seed is a third data shape compatible for ingestion by the meal generator module, wherein the first data shape and the second data shape are incompatible for ingestion by the meal generator.
However, it would be obvious for all of these data to be of different data shapes (for instance, some data would be height and weight, and other data would be how many calories burned during exercise and other data would be food restrictions or allergies), but it would be obvious for the system to use this data, even though they are of different shapes initially, once the meal has been chosen (after the recommendations, adjustments, etc.) to be transferred and converted to instructions so that the meal generator can just make the meal.
Regarding claim 28, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and but does not teach system wherein the system is further configured to: receive first ingredient data, wherein the first meal data is generated based further on the first ingredient data. However, in light of the teachings above, particularly Wragg ¶¶554-599, where all the determining and communicating of the different features and capabilities of the system is explained, and seeing that they can all work together (Wragg, ¶555), any further selecting or changing of mind of the operator to have the device receive further instructions to further create templates and seeds would simply be a duplication of parts or rearrangement of parts, (see MPEP §2144.04VI) that is redoing the activities already taught by the machine in order to best serve the operator, and have him or her be able to choose their meal or modify it, or even change their mind adjust the whole thing, and the machine would be capable of receiving further instruction, and to make new templates and seeds in order to accommodate the desires of the customer/operator.
Regarding claim 29, Wragg in view of Benefield teaches all the limitations of claim 28, as above, and further teaches a system wherein first ingredient data is received from the meal preparation system and comprises inventory data indicating availability of ingredients (Wragg, ¶¶0084, 0091, in light of the above, the system makes available the ingredients that are available, and this is obvious in light of the above, to ensure that the meal suggested can actually be made).
Regarding claim 30, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the first meal generation template comprises data directed to caloric density, macronutrient content and/or micronutrient content of the ingredients (Wragg, fig. 6, ¶0181, “display the macronutrient levels (e.g. calories, protein, fat, carbohydrates) for a meal.”) .
Regarding claim 31, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 30, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the first meal data is generated based further on the caloric density, the macronutrient content, and/or micronutrient content (fig. 6, shows macronutrient information for the personalized meal once complete).
Regarding claim 33, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 29, and further teach a system wherein the inventory data further indicates a freshness status of the ingredients (Wragg, see table 1, p. 17 “% age” how much shelf life has passed; and ¶262 teaches to have the size of the container, and table 2, p. 23, lines 17-25 teaches “Automated Restocking, Based on real time analysis of stock levels, climate, dates and sales”, “improves freshness”; dates and climates would indicate a freshness status of ingredients).
Regarding claim 34, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, and further teaches a system comprising the meal preparation system (Wragg, abstract, a meal preparation system).
Regarding claim 35, Wragg teaches a system (see Wragg, ¶¶554-599) comprising:
a user database, configured to store user template data associated with a first user (Wragg, ¶0639, user data is stored and accessed);
a configuration database, configured to store meal generation templates (Wragg, at least, Appendix 2, p. 16) ;
a communications module (Wragg, ¶72, user interface);
a session module, configured to determine individual meal generation seeds for individual meal generation sessions (¶0125-6, 128, meal or ingredient suggestions based on user information);
a meal generator module, wherein the system is configured to:
receive, with the communications module and from a user device associated with the first user, first user data comprising a first meal generation request (¶0072, enter user choice, e.g. “build your own”);
access, with the session module and based on receiving the first meal generation request, the user database to obtain first user template data associated with the first user (Wragg, ¶102, “parameter” to abide by, i.e. “nutritional parameters, food preferences, etc.”; ¶126, smartwatch or phone for users biometric and activity data, ¶582, personalized information)), wherein the first user template data excludes any meal recipes;
generate, with the session module and based on the first user template data and the first user data, a plurality of meal generation seed (meal or ingredient suggestions, ¶0125-0128) associated with the first meal generation request, each of the plurality of meal generation seeds excluding any meal recipes (0579, displays list that can then be altered) and comprising nutritional targets in one or more nutritional categories and portion size targets to allow for subsequent automated selection of ingredient categories for from scratch meal generation (¶569, “a computer-implemented system that displays to the consumer a menu or list of meal choices and is configured to enable the consumer to select a meal, and then change the quantity, amount, weight or relative proportion of one or more ingredients in the meal and to display to the consumer how one or more nutritional parameters alter because of that change, to define a customized or personalized meal);
communicate the plurality of generation seed to the meal generator module (Wragg, ¶0569, display to the consumer);
select, with the meal generator module and based on receiving a meal generation seed, a first respective meal generation template for each of the plurality of meal generation seeds from the configuration database, the meal generation templates each specifying a plurality of ingredient categories for subsequent selection of ingredients, and excluding specific meal ingredients (Wragg, ¶0569, select the meal/quantity, only available ingredients);
generate, for each of the plurality of meal generation seeds and with the meal generator module, a plurality of meals in accordance with the plurality of meal generation templates, wherein generating each of the meals comprises:
individually selecting, based on the respective meal generation template and the respective meal generation seed, a plurality of individual ingredients and portion sizes for each of the plurality of individual ingredients (Wragg, ¶¶, 0574, 0578-579, select ingredients and amount); and
determining one or more preparation aspects for the plurality of individual ingredients, wherein a combination of the plurality of individually selected ingredients, the portion sizes of the respective individual ingredients, and the one or more preparation aspects provides nutritional values within a threshold error range of each of the nutritional targets (Wragg, ¶0574, computer-implemented system displays nutritional parameters and ¶575, selects a meal that complies with parameters);
communicate, with the communications module, the first meal data that includes data indicating the plurality of meals to the user device (Wragg, ¶0578)
receive, with the communications module from the user device, second user data indicating a user selection of one of the plurality of meals (Wragg, fig. 6, choosing; ¶0579, change amount once first data is selected and it is received); and
communicate, with the communications module, the second meal data associated with the meal selected by the user to a meal preparation system to cause the meal preparation system to prepare the selected meal (Wragg, ¶580, “robotic meal assembly device is then configured to assemble or prepare that customized or personalized meal” fig. 1).
It is noted that in the rejection of claim 35, Wragg discloses all the features, but he does so in different embodiments and “features” of his invention, as he describes, and these features are summarily taught in Appendix 4, and primarily, for our purposes, on pp. 18-19, ¶¶554-599, and there are nine “features” described. However, in ¶555, he states “Note that each Feature 1-14 may, but does not have to, be combined with one or more of the other Features 1-14. We list also important optional sub-features; note that each optional sub-feature may, but does not have to, be combined with any one or more Features 1-14; and each sub-feature may be combined, but does not have to, with any one or more other sub-features.” In light of all these features working together, and that Wragg teaches all the features individually (even in different “features”) it is thus obvious that Wragg teaches all the limitations of the claim in order to create a more thorough, efficient, and personalized meal generation experience.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wragg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0041252) in view of Kodali (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210196081).
Regarding claim 16, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, but does not further teach a system wherein the system is further configured to: receive, with the communications module, configuration data indicating a current configuration of the autonomous meal preparation robot, wherein the first meal generation seed is determined based further on the configuration data. However, Kodali does teach configuration data indicating a current configuration of the autonomous meal preparation robot (Kodali, position determination unit 118, ¶0038, “determine and/or acquire position data about various components of the operating environment 100, such as the robotic device 106).. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wragg with Kodali, , indicating the current configuration of the robot, to know the conditions and the proper way and amount and process for making food based also on the configuration of the robot.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wragg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0041252) in view of Benefield (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0374386).
Regarding claim 17, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further specifically teach a system wherein the system is further configured to: receive, with the communications module and from the user device, first fitness data; and store, within the user database, the first fitness data, wherein the determining the first meal generation seed is further based on the first fitness data. However, Benefield, in his meal generation device based on, among other things, fitness, teaches wherein the system is further configured to: receive, with the communications module and from the user device, first fitness data; and store, within the user database, the first fitness data, wherein the determining the first meal generation seed is further based on the first fitness data. (Benefield ¶¶29-30; fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wragg with the teachings of Benefield to get fitness data, which Wragg already does (see rejection of claim 1) and put it in a data base, to have quick access to important information (such as fitness goals, low sodium, etc.) when preparing meals to achieve the expected result of meals according to personal preference and personal health issues.
Claims 25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wragg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0041252) as evidenced by Hinman (Hinman, “Quick Teriyaki Chicken Rice Bowls Recipe” retrieved from https://www.crunchycreamysweet.com/quick-teriyaki-chicken-rice-bowls-recipe/).
Regarding claim 25, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, bud does not further teach specifically the first meal generation template specifies at least a carbohydrate base, a first number of proteins, a second number of vegetables, and a dressing. Wragg does not teach those specific four ingredients together, however, Wragg generates templates and is able to generate meals of many things, including those ingredients (Wragg, ¶¶0672, 0627, 0266). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to specify these limitations, in order to have a well-balanced meal, with carbohydrates and protein and vegetables, and covered with a dressing to make it taste better. Also it is noted that, as an example, Wragg teaches bowls (figs. 1) and, for instance, a teriyaki Chicken and Rice Bowl (with broccoli would include “at least a carbohydrate base, a first number of proteins, a second number of vegetables, and a dressing.” (see Hinman “Quick Teriyaki Chicken Rice Bowls Recipe” retrieved from https://www.crunchycreamysweet.com/quick-teriyaki-chicken-rice-bowls-recipe/).
Regarding claim 36, Wragg teaches all the limitations of claim 35, as above, but does not further explicitly teach wherein the plurality of meal generation templates comprise a first meal generation template and a second meal generation template, wherein the first meal generation template specifies at least a first carbohydrate base, a first number of proteins, and a second number of vegetables, and wherein the second meal generation template specifies a second carbohydrate base, a third number of proteins different from the first number, and a fourth number of vegetables different from the second number. Wragg does not teach those specific four ingredients together, however, Wragg generates templates and is able to generate meals of many things, including those ingredients (Wragg, ¶¶0672, 0627, 0266). As well, as noted above, Wragg teaches the opportunity to adjust ingredients or components, so one may adjust the ingredients to one’s preferences (Wragg, at least ¶0095 where a meal may be selected, and then the ingredients are individually selected to change “amount, weight, or relative proportion of each ingredient”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to specify these limitations, in order to have a well-balanced meal, with carbohydrates and protein and vegetables, and covered with a dressing to make it taste better and to adjust for preferences of amount. Also it is noted that, as an example, Wragg teaches bowls (figs. 1) and, for instance, conventional bowls contain such ingredients, such as a teriyaki Chicken and Rice Bowl (which includes broccoli, and thus would include “at least a carbohydrate base, a first number of proteins, a second number of vegetables, and a dressing.” (see Hinman “Quick Teriyaki Chicken Rice Bowls Recipe” retrieved from https://www.crunchycreamysweet.com/quick-teriyaki-chicken-rice-bowls-recipe/).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed forms PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights