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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. RU 2020127794 filed on 08/20/2020.
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 limitations are:
In claim 1:
The limitation “a first transport device” in line 2
“device” is the generic placeholder.
“transport” is the functional language.
The limitation “a device for processing” in line 8
“device” is the generic placeholder.
“for processing” is the functional language.
The limitation “a second transport device” in line 11
“device” is the generic placeholder.
“transport” is the functional language.
The limitation “a means for transferring” in line 12
“means” is the generic placeholder.
“for transferring” is the functional language.
The limitation “a packaging subsystem” in line 14
“subsystem” is the generic placeholder.
“packaging” is the functional language.
The limitation “a subsystem for temporarily storing” in line 15
“subsystem” is the generic placeholder.
“for temporarily storing” is the functional language.
In claim 13:
The limitation “a press mechanism” in lines 1-2
“mechanism” is the generic placeholder.
“press” is the functional language.
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.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “a first transport device” in line 2 of claim 1 has been described in claim 2 as a movable two-axis worktable.
The limitation “a device for processing” in line 8 of claim 1 has been described in the published specification para. 0140 to comprise a grater, knives, or pump, or cone crusher.
The limitation “a second transport device” in line 11 of claim 1 has been described in claim 10 as an endless belt.
The limitation “a means for transferring” in line 12 of claim 1 has been described in the published specification in para. 0147 as means 26 which is implemented as a pusher-piston.
The limitation “a subsystem for temporarily storing” in line 15 of claim 1 has been described in the published specification in para. 0150 as the subsystem 36 that has a heating element configured to maintain the heated state of the finished products and comprises a vertically oriented conveyor-type device.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1:
The corresponding structure of “a packaging subsystem” in line 14 of claim 1 is not supported in the original disclosure as interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f). Therefore, since the Specification does not clearly identify what the corresponding structure of the “a packaging subsystem” is, there is a presumption that the applicant didn’t possess the invention at the time of filing, i.e. lack of written description.
In claim 13:
The corresponding structure of “a press mechanism” in lines 1-2 is not supported in the original disclosure as interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f). Therefore, since the Specification does not clearly identify what the corresponding structure of the “a press mechanism” is, there is a presumption that the applicant didn’t possess the invention at the time of filing, i.e. lack of written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1:
The limitation "the control computer is configured, by controlling functionalities and operation modes of the equipment in an integrated manner" in lines 23-24 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “equipment” in line 24 is intended to refer to the equipment of the cooler recited in line 5 of claim 1.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that it refers to another equipment.
The limitation "an automatically opening area" in lines 17-18 renders the claim indefinite because according to published specification para. 0123, the “automatically opening area” refers to a window 38 that is accessible to the user, which is always open. It is unclear what “automatically” is to be construed.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed to read “an opening area”.
In claim 4:
The limitation "a digital product quality monitoring tool" renders the claim indefinite because there is a previous instance of "a digital product quality monitoring tool" recited in line 19 of claim 1. It is unclear if the limitation is intended to refer to the same monitoring tool previously recited in claim 1.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the limitation refers to the same monitoring tool previously recited in claim 1.
In claim 6:
The limitation "operation modes of equipment" in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because there is a previous instance of “equipment” recited in line 5 of claim 1. It is unclear if the “equipment” in line 6 of claim 6 is intended to refer to the same equipment in line 5 of claim 1, or refers to another equipment.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the limitation “operation modes of equipment” refers to the operation modes of another equipment.
In claim 14:
The limitation "the main production equipment" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks an antecedent basis.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed to read “a main production equipment”.
In claim 1:
The claim limitation "a packaging subsystem" in line 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as noted above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In the specification, “a packaging subsystem"” is not disclosed structurally. The proper structure must be disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what the inventor has identified to perform the recited function.
In claim 13:
The claim limitation "a press mechanism" in lines 1-2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as noted above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In the specification, “a press mechanism” is not disclosed structurally. The proper structure must be disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what the inventor has identified to perform the recited function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garden (US 20170290345) in view of Juillet (US 4687119) and Ito (JP 2012193001, published on 10/11/2012)
Regarding Claim 1, Garden discloses an automatic system for producing and packaging ready-to-eat flour products (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), comprising:
a first transport device (first assembly conveyor 122a) for food bases (food items 202) (para. 0080);
a food processing subsystem (dispensers 130a, 130b, dispensing containers 155, refrigerated environment 161; figs. 2A and 2D-2E) mounted above the first transport device (para. 0084, 0092, and 0107; fig. 2A), the food processing subsystem (dispensers 130a, 130b, dispensing containers 155, refrigerated environment 161) comprising:
a cooler (refrigerated environment 161) having equipment (dispensing container 155) configured to withdraw and feed the food bases (toppings) onto the first transport device (first assembly conveyor 122a) (para. 0034 and 0107; figs. 2D and 2A); and
a group of food distribution units (dispensers 130a, 130b, dispensing containers 155) each configured as a container (reservoir 302) for food ingredients with a device (grating attachment 157a; figs. 2J, 2K, 2L, and 2M) for processing the food ingredients (para. 0093 and 0084), the device for processing the food ingredients being configured to deliver a prescribed amount of the food ingredients onto a corresponding food base (food items 202) (para. 0093 and 0084);
an oven (oven 158) equipped with a second transport device (conveyor 160a) for the food bases (food items 202) (para. 0112; fig. 2A), the oven (oven 158) having an input (annotated fig. 2A) in vicinity of which there is a means (robot 166a; fig. 2A) for transferring a partially ready food product (para. 0115) and an output (annotated fig. 2A) in vicinity of which there is a working section (annotated fig. 2A) equipped with an element (robot 166b) for transferring a resulting baked food product to a packaging subsystem (second assembly conveyor 122b) (para. 0121-0124), the packaging subsystem (second assembly conveyor 122b) being connected to a subsystem (rack 199) (it is noted that the conveyor 122b is operationally connected to the rack 199 via robot 192 such that food items can be transferred from the conveyor 122b to the rack 199) (para. 0130; fig. 2A) for temporarily storing and issuing a ready and packaged food product (cooked and packaged dough 202f), the subsystem (rack 199) for temporarily storing and issuing the ready and packaged food product (cooked and packaged dough 202f),
wherein digital product quality monitoring tools (cameras 142’s) are installed at outputs of the first and second transport devices (conveyor 122a, conveyor 160a) (para. 0091; fig. 2A);
wherein images of the food products are transmitted to a control computer (control system 106; fig. 1) coupled to a central server (network 118) and connected to an Internet network (internet) (para. 0079; fig. 1); and
wherein the control computer (control system 106) is configured, by controlling functionalities and operation modes of the equipment (robots 140) in an integrated manner (para. 0086-0087), to analyze the received images, comparing the received images with loaded reference images (para. 0086-0087), and in case of an unsatisfactory result, generate and send a command signal (alert) for low-quality product withdrawal (“if the imager 142 detects a defective flatten dough or sauce pattern, it may transmit an alert to the control system 104, which may cause the defective product to be rejected and a new instance to be made”, para. 0087).
PNG
media_image1.png
561
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Garden does not disclose:
the subsystem having the structure as interpreted by 112f above for delivering a food product selected by a user to an automatically opening area, and
the low-quality product withdrawal is executed by actuators.
However, Juillet discloses a subsystem (isothermal cabinet 10; fig. 1) comprising an oven 19, lift 15, and conveyor belts 22, 21, 14A-14G for delivering a food product (packaging receptacle A) selected by a user to an automatically opening area (outlet opening 37) (col. 2, lines 32-47).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the subsystem of Garden (i.e. rack 199 of Garden) with the subsystem of Juillet in order to heat the packaged food whenever an order is input by the user and dispense the heated packaged food item to the opening area to be taken out by the user. Doing so would save energy because only food items that is ordered by the user is heated by the oven and delivered to the user for consumption.
The modification does not disclose the low-quality product withdrawal is executed by actuators.
However, Ito discloses a sorting device using an actuator (sorting mechanism 13; figs. 1-3) to redirect and reject non-compliant work piece (i.e. food product) (para. 0002, 0018 and 0027) (it is noted when defective product is determined by X-ray inspection, or weight detection device, the defective product is re-directed to the defective product transport means 12 by the sorting mechanism 13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic system of Garden in view of Juillet to include the actuators (i.e. sorting mechanism 14 of Ito) mounted above the conveyors 122a and 160a as taught by Ito to cause the defect products to be ejected to a storage location by the sorting mechanism 13 of Ito such that consistent quality products are ensured.
Regarding Claim 2, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the first transport device (first assembly conveyor 122a) is implemented as a movable two-axis worktable (belt 122) mounted on guides (annotated fig. 2A) (para. 0080. It is noted the surface of endless belt 122 moves horizontally and vertically as it moves up and down along the guide rail 210a).
PNG
media_image3.png
298
701
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the two-axis worktable (belt 122) comprises a base (rollers 206’s) having a movable platform (belt 122) installed thereon (para. 0080; fig. 2A), the movable platform having a lower part configured to move in a longitudinal direction and an upper part configured to move in a transverse direction (annotated fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image4.png
298
894
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the two-axis worktable (belt 122) is equipped with a digital product quality monitoring tool (cameras 142’s) (para. 0187).
Regarding Claim 5, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the digital product quality monitoring tool (cameras 142’s) is implemented as a video camera (para. 0187).
Regarding Claim 6, the modification discloses the automatic system, wherein the control computer (control system 106; fig. 1) is configured to:
analyze the received images from the product quality monitoring tool (camera 142) installed on the two-axis worktable (belt 122) mainly in combination with the received images from a product quality monitoring tool (other camera 142) installed at the output of the two-axis worktable (para. 0087 and 0091 of Garden);
generate, in case of incomplete reference compliance of the products, programmed command signals (alert of Garden) that activate desired operation modes of equipment (sorting mechanism 13 of Ito) which are aimed at eliminating deficiencies of the products (para. 0027 of Ito).
PNG
media_image5.png
348
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the first transport device (first assembly conveyor 122a) is implemented as a conveyor device having an endless belt (endless belt) (para. 0075).
Regarding Claim 8, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the cooler (refrigerated environment; fig. 2D) is a refrigerating chamber for storing the food bases (toppings dispensed by dispensing container 155) which is structurally docked with the first transport device (first assembly conveyor 122) (para. 0107) (according to Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dock, accessed on 02/19/2026, “dock” is interpreted to mean to guide into or alongside a dock. In this case, the refrigerated environment 161 is guided alongside the belt in a manner that food items enter and exit the refrigerated environment through the slots 161a of the environment 161).
PNG
media_image6.png
182
480
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the containers for the food ingredients (sauce dispensers 130’s and dispensing containers 155’s; figs. 2E and 2A) are installed sequentially in a row and comprise free-flowing (sauce) (para. 0085), pasty (sauce), solid (boiled eggs), semi-solid (cheese) and liquid additives (sauce) (para. 0084 and 0093).
Regarding Claim 10, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the second transport device (conveyor 160a) is implemented as a conveyor device having an endless belt (para. 0158).
Regarding Claim 11, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein video cameras are used as the quality monitoring tools (para. 0187).
Regarding Claim 12, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the working section is equipped with a checkweigher that is configured to measure a weight of the products, and data on the weight are used by the control computer when analyzing the images, and wherein, if the weight deviates from loaded required indicators, a decision is made to withdraw the low-quality products.
However, Ito further discloses a checkweigher is configured to measure a weight of the products (workpiece), and data on the weight are used by the control computer (control unit 15) when analyzing the images (x-ray inspection device), and wherein, if the weight deviates from loaded required indicators, a decision is made to withdraw the low-quality products (defective product) (para. 0018 and 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the working section of Garden (i.e. belt 204b of Garden) in view of Ito to include the checkweigher and the camera as further taught by Ito to utilize the image data and the weight data of the product in order to separate the defective products from the good products, thereby yield consistent quality products.
Regarding Claim 13, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the working section (belt 204b) is equipped with a press mechanism (blades 180) for cutting the backed products (cooked dough) (para. 0125; fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 14, Garden discloses the automatic system (on-demand robotic food assembly line assembly 100; figs. 1 and 2A), wherein the main production equipment (spreader robot 140) is operatively combined for visual inspection and covered with a transparent protective showcase (transparent windows 148) (para. 0086).
Regarding Claim 15, the modification discloses the automatic system, wherein the actuators (sorting mechanism 13 of Ito) are arranged within transfer sections of the transport devices (belts) (fig. 3 of Ito) and are implemented as separate controllable modules (it is noted the sorting mechanism 13’s of Ito is implemented separate from the belts of Garden) equipped with a piston-pusher (driving means 13b of Ito) having a stop (extrusion end position) (para. 0027; figs. 1 of Ito) and configured to transfer the low-quality products (defective product) to a storage (defective product transport means 12) (according to Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piston, accessed on 02/25/2026, “piston” is interpreted to mean sliding piece moved by or moving against fluid pressure which usually consists of a short cylindrical body fitting within a cylindrical chamber or vessel along which it moves back and forth).
PNG
media_image7.png
206
808
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, the modification discloses the automatic system, wherein the actuators (sorting mechanism 13’s of Ito) are arranged on movable parts of the transport devices (belts 204b, and 160a of Garden) and are separate controllable units (it is noted the sorting mechanism 13 is controlled separate from the belts) configured as a piston-pusher (driving means 13b of Ito) having a stop (extrusion end position) (para. 0027; figs. 1 of Ito) and configured to transfer the low-quality products (defective product) to a storage (defective product transport means 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571)272-9059. 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761