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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/01/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 2, 4-5, and 16 have been amended, no claims have been withdrawn, claim 3 has been cancelled, and a new claim 17 have been added. Thus, claims 1-2 and 4-17 are presently under consideration in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because it is a new claim and should be written as (New) claim, not (Currently Amended). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 vibration unit” in claims 2 and 7.
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.
Paragraph [0029] discloses in the preferred embodiment, the multi-functional food processing machine 1 further comprises a toolhead 16, as shown in FIGS. 1-10. In reference to FIGS. 3-4, the tumbler chassis 11 comprises an upper receiver channel 115. The upper receiver channel 115 traverses from the tumbler chassis 11 to the tumbler drum 13. The toolhead 16 is connected along the upper receiver channel 115. In the preferred embodiment, the toolhead 16 takes the form of a top cover that covers the upper receiver channel 115. In another embodiment, the toolhead 16 is a sifting tray, as shown in FIGS. 7-8. The sifting tray comprises a sift channel 161 and a sifting screen 162. The sift channel 161 traverses through the sifting tray. The sifting screen 162 is delineated along the sift channel 161. The multi-functional food processing machine 1 further comprises a vibration unit 17, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 11. The vibration unit 17 is operatively engaged to the tumbler chassis 11, where the vibration unit 17 is configured to transmit vibration to the sifting tray. In this embodiment, the multi-functional food processing machine 1 serves as a sift for breaded ingredients. More specifically, the user may insert breaded ingredients on top of the sifting tray such that excess breading and flour may sift out of the breaded ingredients. In the preferred embodiment, the sift channel 161 takes the form of a raised boundary along the sifting tray such that the breaded ingredients placed on top of the sifting screen 162 are secured within the sifting tray. In the preferred embodiment, the sifting screen 162 takes the form of any suitable mesh screen suitable for sifting out excess bread and flour material from breaded ingredients. In the preferred embodiment, the vibration unit 17 takes the form of any suitable mechanical vibrator that provides ample vibration along the sifting tray.
Paragraph [0036] discloses the motor 14, the vibration unit 17, the controller 21, and the power supply 18 are electronically connected to the processing unit 19. The power supply 18 is electrically connected to the power input terminal 191. The controller 21 is electronically connected to the signal input terminal 192. The motor 14 is electronically connected to the first signal output terminal 193. The vibration unit 17 is electronically connected to the second signal output terminal 194. In the preferred embodiment, the power supply 18 takes the form of any suitable power supply 18 such as but not limited to AC power supply 18, battery power supply 18, or any other suitable power supply 18 that powers the electrical components that constitutes the multi-functional food processing machine 1. In the preferred embodiment, the processing unit 19 takes the form of a CPU board that handles all electronic functions of the multi-functional food processing machine 1. In the preferred embodiment, the controller 21 serves as any suitable interface controller 21 that allows the user to control specified variable functions associated with the motor 14 or vibrator. Such specified variable functions include but are not limited to toggle power on/off, rotational speed RPM, vibration magnitude, customized spin motions, or any other suitable variable functions. In the preferred embodiment, the controller 21 comprises a timer 23. The timer 23 is electronically connected to the signal input terminal 192. The timer 23 allows the user to set the duration of time that the multi-functional food processing machine 1 operates. In the preferred embodiment, the power input terminal 191 directs power derived from the power supply 18 into the processing unit 19 such that the processing unit 19 regulates ample current to the first signal output terminal 193 and the second signal output terminal 194. The signal input terminal 192 relays user interface driven signals derived from the controller 21 to the processing unit 19 such that the processing unit 19 executes commands to the first signal output terminal 193 or second signal output terminal 194. The commands executed along the first signal output terminal 193 will manipulate the motor 14, while commands executed along the second signal output terminal 194 will manipulate the vibration unit 17.
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 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) 1, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard (US 2,114,730) in view of Tun et al. (US 11,297,874).
Regarding claim 1, Richard discloses a multi-functional food processing machine (see figure 1, i.e. a bean snipping machine) comprising:
a tumbler chassis 2 (fig. 1, i.e. called a frame);
a tumbler drum (14, i.e. a rotating cylinder/drum);
a motor (6);
a cutting element 70 (figs. 1 and 4, i.e. knifes); and
the tumbler chassis (2) comprising a tumbler track (34, 36), a tumbler roller 30, 32 (fig. 2), an inlet hopper (18), and an outlet spout (20);
the tumbler drum (2) comprising a drum cavity (not labeled), a plurality of gaps (58, i.e. openings), a plurality of tumbler fins (i.e. baffles), and a plurality of tumbler partitions (38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, i.e. called plates, collars) (pages 3 and 5);
the tumbler track (34, 36) being connected within the tumbler chassis (2) (see figure 2);
the tumbler drum (14) being rotatably (i.e. called rotating cylinder) connected to the tumbler track (34, 36) (see figure 3; page 2);
the tumbler roller (30, 32) being rotatably engaged to the tumbler drum (14) (see figure 2);
the motor (6) being torsionally engaged to the tumbler roller (30, 32) (see figure 1);
the drum cavity (not labeled, page 2, lines 28-42, i.e. a cavity is inside the rotating cylinder/drum 14) being positioned within the tumbler drum (14) (see figure 2);
the plurality of gaps (58, i.e. openings) being peripherally distributed about the tumbler drum (14) (see figure 1);
the plurality of tumbler fins (i.e. baffles) being peripherally connected about the drum cavity (see pages 2-3, 4);
the plurality of partitions (38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, i.e. called plates, collars) being longitudinally distributed along the drum cavity (see figure 3);
the inlet hopper (18) traversing from the tumbler chassis (2) to the drum cavity (see figure 1);
the outlet spout (20) traversing from the drum cavity to the tumbler chassis (2), opposite to the inlet hopper (18) (see figure 1);
the cutting element (70) being operatively engaged to the tumbler drum (14), wherein the cutting element (70) is configured to skim tangent (see figure 4, i.e. “diagonally arranged cutting edge of the first knife…”) along the plurality of gaps (58, i.e. openings) (page 3).
Richard discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a controller; the controller comprising a timer; and the timer being electronically connected to the signal input terminal.
However, Tun teaches a controller 35 (fig. 3, i.e. a processor); the controller (35) comprising a timer (47); and the timer (47) being electronically connected to the signal input terminal (col. 9, lines 10-24).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a bean roasting apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard and Tun before him or her, to include such processor/controller arrangement of Tun because capturing a scene in a chamber of a bean roasting device, comparing the image with the historical roasting pattern set to determine a roasting level represented by the image and generate a control signal, and informing the roaster of the current roasting level of the coffee beans through in various ways. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves automated roasting of performing the operation such as roasting, offloading the beans, and the like according to the roasting level set by the roaster (col. 2, lines 40-43).
With respect to claim 9, Richard in view of Tun discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Richard further discloses the tumbler chassis 2 (fig. 1, i.e. called a frame) further comprising a utility compartment (i.e. a space below the rotating cylinder/drum 14); the utility compartment traversing into the tumbler chassis (2): and the motor (6) being positioned within the utility compartment (i.e. a space below the rotating cylinder/drum 14).
With respect to claim 13, Richard in view of Tun discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Richard further discloses the tumbler chassis 2 (fig. 1, i.e. called a frame) further comprising an inlet channel (not shown/labeled, i.e. a channel inside the bean chute 18) and an outlet channel (not shown/labeled, i.e. a channel inside the discharge spout 20); the inlet channel (not shown, i.e. a channel inside the bean chute 18) traversing from the inlet hopper to the tumbler drum (14, i.e. a rotating cylinder/drum); and the outlet channel (not shown/labeled, i.e. a channel inside the discharge spout 20) traversing from the tumbler drum (14, i.e. a rotating cylinder/drum) to the outlet spout (20).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard (US 2,114,730) in view of Tun et al. (US 11,297,874) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kihara et al. (US 10,695,773) and Song (US 20080089986).
Regarding claim 2, Richard in view of Tun et al. discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1 including of which Tun further discloses a power supply (col. 6, lines 46-52), except for
a processing unit; and
a vibration unit;
wherein: the processing unit comprising a power input terminal, a signal input terminal, a first signal output terminal, and a second signal output terminal;
the power supply being electrically connected to the power input terminal;
the controller being electronically connected to the signal input terminal;
the motor being electronically connected to the first signal output terminal; and
the vibration unit being electronically connected to the second signal output terminal.
However, Kihara teaches a processing unit 11a (fig. 2); and
a vibration unit (¶ 0118);
the processing unit 11a (fig. 2) comprising a power input terminal, a signal input terminal, a first signal output terminal, and a second signal output terminal (¶ 0070-0072, 0283);
the controller 11 (fig. 2, i.e. called a control apparatus) being electronically connected to the signal input terminal (¶ 0435-0436);
the motor (41a) being electronically connected to the first signal output terminal (¶ 0072, 0077); and the vibration unit being electronically connected to the second signal output terminal (¶ 0118).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a food separation apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun and Kihara before him or her, to include such device modules of Kihara because it separates an unwanted substance (for example, chaff) from an extraction target (for example, ground beans of roasted coffee beans), comprising: a forming unit configured to form a separation chamber through which the extraction target passes. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a separation efficiency of the unwanted substance and also prevent the ground beans (necessary portion) from being separate as the unwanted substance (¶ 0102).
Furthermore, Song teaches the power supply (i.e. electric power) being electrically connected to the power input terminal (¶ 0003, 0094, 0137).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing beans. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun, Kihara and Song before him or her, to include such power supply of Song because it provide a coffee roaster which can efficiently roast coffee beans by using an electrical heater with very small power consumption and eliminate smoke and smell generated when roasting coffee beans. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows fully automated operation by an inexperienced user or even novice at significantly reduced power consumption (¶ 0007).
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard (US 2,114,730) in view of Tun et al. (US 11,297,874) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown (US 4,597,977).
Regarding claim 4, Richard in view of Tun discloses all the claimed limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for a toolhead; the tumbler chassis comprising an upper receiver channel; the upper receiver channel traversing from the tumbler chassis to the tumbler drum; and the toolhead being removably connected along the upper receiver channel such that the toolhead fully extends horizontally over the upper receiver channel.
However, Brown teaches a toolhead 120 (fig. 1, i.e. called a segment); the tumbler chassis 12 (figs. 1, 2, i.e. a frame) comprising an upper receiver channel (i.e. the opening when removing the segment 120); the upper receiver channel traversing from the tumbler chassis (12) to the tumbler drum (18); and the toolhead (120) being removably connected along the upper receiver channel (i.e. the opening when removing the segment 120) such that the toolhead (120) fully extends horizontally over the upper receiver channel (see figure 1, i.e. the opening when removing the segment 120) (col. 4, lines 23-48).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machines and apparatus for shelling or hulling vegetables. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun and Brown before him or her, to include such toolhead of Brown because periodically the machine may be stopped and opened and any debris or trash which has been collected inside or has stuck in the wire mesh or to the paddles 40 may be removed and the machine completely cleansed but it is unnecessary of course to do this for the purpose of loading and unloading the machine which is a continuous operation for an indefinite period of time unlike some of the prior art devices which have to be opened for loading and unloading. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves the separation of the hulls and trash from the kernels in the processing and separation in the type of machine which uses a rotary drum and some sort of internal beaters or paddles counter-rotating with respect to the rotation of the drum (col. 1, lines 65 – col. 2, lines 2).
With respect to claim 11, Richard in view of Tun and Brown discloses the claimed limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1 of which Brown further teaches the tumbler chassis 12 (figs. 1, 2, i.e. a frame) further comprising a catch compartment (56, i.e. called a housing) and a catch receptacle (not shown, i.e. a collection box beneath the shaker 70); the catch compartment (56) traversing into the tumbler chassis (12); and the catch receptacle (not shown, i.e. a collection box beneath the shaker 70) being positioned within the catch compartment (56) (col. 4, lines 18-22).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun and Brown before him or her, to include such catch compartment arrangement of Brown because an advantage in the way the striking members such as paddles are located and driven within the inclined drum, spaced from the inner surface of the inclined drum, and the further separation of kernels and trash assisted by air beneath the drum while the drum is rotating. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious it improves the separation of the hulls and trash from the kernels in the processing and separation in the type of machine which uses a rotary drum and some sort of internal beaters or paddles counter-rotating with respect to the rotation of the drum (col. 1, lines 65 – col. 2, lines 2).
With respect to claims 15-16, Richard in view of Tun and Brown discloses the claimed limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1 of which Brown further discloses a plurality of adjustment elements 134 (fig. 1, i.e. called a nut); the tumbler chassis (12) further comprising a lower tumbler base (14, i.e. called legs) and an upper tumbler portion (110, i.e. called a top closure); the lower tumbler base (14, i.e. called legs) being positioned terminally opposite to the upper tumbler portion (110, i.e. called a top closure, see figure 1); the plurality of adjustment elements (134) being distributed about the lower tumbler base (14, i.e. called legs), wherein the plurality of adjustment elements (134) is configured to adjust the tumbler chassis in a specified angle (i.e. inclined angle); and wherein the plurality of adjustment elements (134) is a plurality of adjustable casters (134, i.e. called a nut) (col. 4, lines 65 – col. 5, lines 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun and Brown before him or her, to include such adjustments of Brown because normally in operation the machine is inclined by raising the input end which is easily done by rotating feet. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves the separation of the hulls and trash from the kernels in the processing and separation in the type of machine which uses a rotary drum and some sort of internal beaters or paddles counter-rotating with respect to the rotation of the drum (col. 1, lines 65 – col. 2, lines 2).
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard (US 2,114,730) in view of Tun et al. (US 11,297,874) and Brown (US 4,597,977) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Brosseuk (US 20140117124).
Regarding claim 6, Richard in view of Tun and Brown discloses all the claimed limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 4, except for the toolhead is a sifting tray; the sifting tray comprising a sift channel and a sifting screen; the sift channel traversing through the sifting tray; and the sifting screen being delineated along the sift channel.
However, Brosseuk discloses the toolhead 122 (fig. 6, i.e. called a water supply manifold) is a sifting tray 150 (fig. 9, i.e. a sluice box); the sifting tray comprising a sift channel (168, i.e. called a main channel) and a sifting screen (172, i.e. called a mesh screen); the sift channel (168) traversing through the sifting tray (150); and the sifting screen (172) being delineated along the sift channel (¶ 0093).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, i.e. screening grainy particles. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun, Brown and Brosseuk before him or her, to include such separation arrangement of Brosseuk because it provides sufficient water to carry away the fine tailings through the sluice box. Nevertheless, far less water is required to process given quantities of placer more than is the case with prior devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because improves the flow dynamics of the coarse materials (¶ 0093).
With respect to claim 7, Richard in view of Tun, Brown and Brosseuk discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 6 of which Brosseuk further discloses a vibration unit (¶ 0048, 0050); and the vibration unit being operatively engaged to the tumbler chassis (20, 117), wherein the vibration unit is configured to transmit vibration to the sifting tray (150) (¶ 0111, 0115).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard and Brosseuk before him or her, to include such vibration arrangement of Brosseuk because it provides sufficient water to carry away the fine tailings through the sluice box. Nevertheless, far less water is required to process given quantities of placer more than is the case with prior devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because improves the flow dynamics of the coarse materials (¶ 0093).
With respect to claim 8, Richard in view of Tun, Brown and Brosseuk discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 4 of which Brosseuk further discloses the toolhead 122 (fig. 6, i.e. called a water supply manifold) is a washing unit (131, i.e. water supply hose); the washing unit comprising a mounting surface (32, i.e. mounting plate), a water inlet (123, 125, 131, i.e. a water supply hose) and a sprinkler (134, i.e. a spray bar); the mounting surface (32, i.e. mounting plate) traversing along the toolhead (122); the sprinkler (134) traversing along the mounting surface (32, i.e. mounting plate); the water inlet (123, 125, 131, i.e. a water supply hose) being connected adjacent to the toolhead; and the water inlet (123, 125, 131, i.e. a water supply hose) being in fluid communication (i.e. water) with the sprinkler (134, i.e. a spray bar) (¶ 0084-0088).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun, Brown and Brosseuk before him or her, to include such washing fluid arrangement of Brosseuk because it provides sufficient water to carry away the fine tailings through the sluice box. Nevertheless, far less water is required to process given quantities of placer more than is the case with prior devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because improves the flow dynamics of the coarse materials (¶ 0093).
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard (US 2,114,730) in view of Tun et al. (US 11,297,874) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song (US 20080089986).
Regarding claim 10, Richard in view of Tun et al. discloses all the claimed limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for the tumbler chassis further comprising a utility access panel; the utility access panel being delineated along the utility compartment; and the utility access panel being connected along the utility compartment.
However, Song teaches the tumbler chassis (see figure 1, not labeled, i.e. a cooling table assembly 2 frame) further comprising a utility access panel 2-1, 2-2, (fig. 3, i.e. called right door and left door); the utility access panel being delineated along the utility compartment (not labeled, i.e. a space to store a ventilation motor 96 and he deodorizer 80); and the utility access panel 2-1, 2-2, (fig. 3, i.e. called right door and left door) being connected along the utility compartment (see figure 3) (¶ 0079).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing beans. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun and Song before him or her, to include such panel(s)/door(s) of Song because it controls the discharge of the cooled beans to the outside, and a cooled bean outlet chute which is inclined downwardly to guide the cooled beans discharged from the cooled bean outlet door to the outside. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides an efficiently cool to the beans (¶ 0088).
With respect to claim 12, Richard in view of Tun and Song discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 10 of which Song further discloses the tumbler chassis (see figure 1, not labeled, i.e. a cooling table assembly 2 frame) further comprising a catch access panel 16 (fig. 3, i.e. a shell drawer); the catch access panel being delineated along the catch compartment (not labeled; see figure 4, i.e. a space underneath the rotating drum 10); and the catch access panel being connected adjacent to the catch compartment (see figures 3-4) .
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun and Song before him or her, to include such catching drawer of Song because it provides a cooled bean outlet door which controls the discharge of the cooled beans to the outside, and a cooled bean outlet chute which is inclined downwardly to guide the cooled beans discharged from the cooled bean outlet door to the outside. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides an efficiently cool to the beans (¶ 0088).
With respect to claim 14, Richard in view of Tun and Song discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 12 of which Song further discloses the tumbler chassis (see figure 1, not labeled, i.e. a cooling table assembly 2 frame) further comprising an outlet access panel 93 (fig. 12, i.e. called an outlet door); the outlet access panel 93 (fig. 12, i.e. called an outlet door) being delineated along the outlet channel (not labeled); and the outlet access panel 93 (fig. 12, i.e. called an outlet door) being connected along the outlet channel (¶ 0088, 0092).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Richard in view of Tun and Song before him or her, to include such panel/door of Song because it controls the discharge of the cooled beans to the outside, and a cooled bean outlet chute which is inclined downwardly to guide the cooled beans discharged from the cooled bean outlet door to the outside. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides an efficiently cool to the beans (¶ 0088).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome Claim Objections and the Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections from previous Office Action. However, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim Interpretation is sustained as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under Richard in view of Tun et al., Kihara, Song, and Brosseuk 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 Richard in view of Tun et al., Brown, Brosseuk, Kihara, and Song.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Brosseuk’s reference. In response to applicant's argument that Brosseuk is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Examiner agrees to disagree because Brosseuk discloses a solution that is reasonably pertinent to the problem-solving area of separating out particles. Therefore, the combination of references fully meet the claimed limitations.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suzuki et al. (US 5,964,074).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761