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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myer et al. (4540592).
With respect to claim 31, Myer teaches a method for supplying a raw material into a production machine, comprising:
supplying the raw material (where it is noted raw material is taken with respect to prior to extrusion process) into the production machine (col. 6 lines 3-5) along a trajectory through a supply channel portion (fig. 1 ref. 106) into a supply opening of a feed hopper (fig. 1 open funnel above barrel 102 and below ref. 106),
pivoting (where it is noted pivoting is defined by “two directions”) the supply channel portion in two directions (col. 6 lines 3-5; vibrate; relative center axis of funnel; alternatively relative static ref. 108), thereby adjusting a trajectory passage angle, at which the trajectory passes through the supply opening (col. 6 lines 3-5; vibration caused trajectory of material) and a trajectory passage position at which the trajectory passes through the supply opening (col. 6 lines 3-5; vibration of material; passage relative position of ref. 106 during vibration), where it is noted the passage angle and trajectory passage position are defined by change in axis due to vibration relative center axis of funnel below ref. 106.
Claim 32, wherein the trajectory passage angle and the trajectory passage position are continuously changed during the supplying of the raw material through the supply opening (col. 6 lines 3-5; vibration of material).
With respect to claim 33, where changing the trajectory passage angle and changing the trajectory passage position define a circular path of the raw material through the supply opening (fig. 1 ref. 106 circular opening, i.e. circular path; alternatively relative shape of funnel above barrel 102 and below ref. 106 defining circular path, i.e. path defined by shape, area encompassed by funnel)
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber (DE4410932; English translation ids 8/25/22).
With respect to claim 31, Weber teaches a method for supplying a raw material (par. 0032; relative to material prior to extrusion processing) into a production machine (par. 0029 extrusion), comprising:
supplying the raw material (where it is noted raw material is taken with respect to prior to extrusion process) into the production machine (par. 0030) along a trajectory through a supply channel portion (fig. 1 ref. 21) into a supply opening (fig. 1 ref. 22) of a feed hopper (fig. 1 ref. 2),
pivoting the supply channel portion in two directions (fig. 1 ref. 51; fig. 2; par. 0032; relative extrusion screws), thereby adjusting a trajectory passage angle, at which the trajectory passes through the supply opening (fig. 1, fig. 2 difference in pivot distance) and a trajectory passage position at which the trajectory passes through the supply opening (fig. 1, fig. 2 difference in pivot distance relative screw).
Claim 32, wherein the trajectory passage angle and the trajectory passage position are discontinuously changed during the supplying of the raw material through the supply opening (par. 0032 relative to prior to supply; discontinue).
With respect to claim 33, where changing the trajectory passage angle and changing the trajectory passage position define a circular path of the raw material through the supply opening (fig. 3 ref. 22)
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myer et al. (4540592) in view of Corbin et al. (3682652) and Reddy et al. (5225228).
Myer teaches a method for processing a raw material mixture in an extrusion machine for manufacturing a food product (col. 6 lines 3-11), comprising:
supplying the raw material mixture to the extrusion machine by a moved supply unit (col. 6 lines 4-5; vibratory feeder), the moved supply unit comprising a channel portion (fig. 1 ref. 106) arranged above a feed hopper (fig. 1 funnel accepting material from 106) and an actuating unit for providing vibration means (col. 6 lines 3-5),
wherein supplying the raw material mixture includes adjusting a position of the supply channel portion relative to the feed hopper in two directions (col. 6 lines 3-6; two directions taken with respect to different planes due to vibration) thereby effecting a uniform supply of the raw material mixture into the extrusion machine (col. 6 lines 3-5), so that the raw material mixture can be processed by the extrusion machine (col. 6 lines 3-5).
Though Myer is silent to the supply unit comprising a second actuating unit. Myer teaches a hopper for providing the material to vibratory feeder, in the instant case a first actuating unit and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of extrusion feed hoppers as taught by Corbin.
More specifically Corbin teaches extrusion processing for producing food products. Corbin teaches essential processing steps including blending the ingredients prior to being provided for extrusion processing (col. 2 lines 62-70).
Thus since Myer teaches the supply unit further comprising the food composition in ref. 108 of fig. 1 comprising ingredients, since the purpose of the second actuator is not limited and since Corbin teaches providing a blender for its art recognized purpose of mixing the ingredients prior to extrusion processing (col. 2 lines 62-70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a second actuator, such as in the instant case a blending means for its art recognized advantage of compounding and combining the ingredients such that they are thoroughly mixed as taught by Corbin (col. 3 lines 1-3) prior being transported into the extrusion barrel by means of the first actuator, the vibratory feeder as taught by Myer (col. 6 lines 3-6; fig. 1 ref. 108, 106)
Myer teaches the farinaceous ingredients for making noodles and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of ingredients for making noodles.
Reddy teaches farinaceous ingredients for making noodles, wherein the raw material mixture has a fiber raw material (col. 5 lines 19-21) and a carrier raw material (col. 3 lines 29-30, col. 5 lines 27-30), wherein the fiber raw material has a process by-product of a manufacturing process (col. 2 lines 41-42), and wherein the carrier raw material has whole-grain components (col. 5 lines 28-30).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute ingredients based on its suitability for its intended use in products for human consumption as taught by Reddy (col. 1 lines 55-58).
In addition, new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, do not amount to invention, merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function.
Though silent to a food manufacturing process, Reddy teaches a same spent grain (col. 2 lines 41-42). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute beverage spent grains with that of a food manufacturing process based on its suitability for its intended use in products for human consumption as taught by Reddy (col. 1 lines 55-58) and since there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function.
With respect to claim 23, Reddy teaches the raw material mixture has 5 wt.% to 80 wt.% fiber raw material and 1 wt.% to 95 wt.% carrier raw material (col. 5 lines 27-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the raw material mixture at 5 wt.% to 80 wt.% fiber raw material and 1 wt.% to 95 wt.% carrier raw material as taught by Reddy (col. 5 lines 27-29) based on its suitability for its intended use in products for human consumption as taught by Reddy (col. 1 lines 55-58)
Claim 24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a proportion of the process by-product in the fiber raw material is 1 wt.% to 100 wt.% as taught by Reddy (col. 5 lines 27-29) based on its suitability for its intended use in products for human consumption as taught by Reddy (col. 1 lines 55-58)
Claim 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide spent grains in the recipe as taught by Reddy (col. 5 lines 27-29) based on its suitability for its intended use in products for human consumption as taught by Reddy (col. 1 lines 55-58)
Claim 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the process by-product at 5 wt.% to 20 wt.% water thus achieving the final wet spent grain as taught by Reddy and since there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function.
Claim 27, Reddy teaches the whole grain component is wheat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide whole wheat as taught by Reddy (col. 5 line 28-29) with respect to the wheat flour as taught by Myer (col. 4 lines 48-49) based on its suitability for its intended use in products for human consumption as taught by Reddy (col. 1 lines 55-58).
Claim 28, Myer teaches the raw material mixture has a further component (col. 4 lines 52-60, 62-65).
Claim 29, wherein the further component is selected from the group consisting of water, sweetening agents, table salt, fats and oils, functional ingredients, flavors, and combinations thereof (col. 4 lines 52-60, 62-65).
With respect to claim 30, Corbin teaches an extruder comprising a standard mixer screw section (col. 3 lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the twin screw extruder of Myer with a single-screw extrusion device to achieve a same extrusion of the material which undergoes shearing for mixing the product components as taught by Myer and extruding the final material as shaped pieces.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging directed to challenges associated with “high fiber mixtures” and/or “press cake or filter cake”, the claims are silent to a high fiber mixture and merely are limited by “fiber raw material”.
With respect to applicants urging the claim amendments clarifies that the claimed supplying step relies on a deliberate, controlled positional adjustment of the supply channel portion relative to the feed hopper in two directions using two actuators.
It is initially noted the urged the two actuating units are not limited to moving the supply unit. The moved supply unit merely comprises two actuating units which are not defined by function, i.e. “and two actuating units”. Myer is taken with respect to the combination ref. 106 and 108 comprising the supply channel portion.
With respect to applicants urging of deliberate, controlled positional adjustment of the supply channel portion. Myer teaches deliberate vibration. Myer teaches controlled positional adjustment, i.e. vibration controlled.
With respect to applicants urging vibration merely oscillates about a nominal position and does not encompass two distinct directions. As noted by applicant, vibration induces movement in different directions. Importantly the claims are merely limited by to adjusting position “in two directions” which is encompassed by the taught vibration of Myer.
The claims are silent to the movement prior to, during or after providing of the raw material and thus encompasses continuous adjusting of the position in two directions during supplying as claimed.
Myer teaches vibration which induces different directions. Applicants claims are silent to a minimum distance defining the different directions and thus nominal direction change due to vibration achieves a same “in two directions” as claimed.
With respect to applicants urging directed to Reddy, Reddy is relied upon for farinaceous ingredients for making noodles, wherein the raw material mixture has a fiber raw material (col. 5 lines 19-21) and a carrier raw material (col. 3 lines 29-30, col. 5 lines 27-30), wherein the fiber raw material has a process by-product of a manufacturing process (col. 2 lines 41-42), and wherein the carrier raw material has whole-grain components (col. 5 lines 28-30).
With respect to applicants urging to claim 30, though Myer is silent to single screw extruder, applicants urged advantage are a result of the supply unit. Myer does not teach away from a single screw extruder and applicant has not provided evidence the extruder of Myer is incapable of processing grain material.
Corbin teaches an extruder comprising a standard mixer screw section (col. 3 lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the twin screw extruder of Myer with a single-screw extrusion device to achieve a same extrusion of the material which undergoes shearing for mixing the product components as taught by Myer and extruding the final material as shaped pieces.
With respect to claim 31, though urged the claimed method is not directed to mere oscillatory or vibratory motion, but instead to a controlled, multi-directional pivoting movement that actively changes both where and at which angle the raw material enters the feed hopper.
Vibration induces movement in different directions. Importantly the claims are merely limited by to adjusting position “in two directions” which is encompassed by the taught vibration of Myer.
The claims are silent to the movement prior to, during or after providing of the raw material and thus encompasses continuous adjusting of the position in two directions during supplying as claimed.
Myer teaches vibration which induces different directions. Applicants claims are silent to a minimum distance defining the different directions and thus nominal direction change due to vibration achieves a same adjusting a trajectory passage angle, at which the trajectory passes through the supply opening (col. 6 lines 3-5; vibration caused trajectory of material) and a trajectory passage position at which the trajectory passes through the supply opening (col. 6 lines 3-5; vibration of material; passage relative position of ref. 106 during vibration), where it is noted the passage angle and trajectory passage position are defined by change in axis due to vibration relative center axis of funnel below ref. 106.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792