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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 01, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed December 01, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1 – 2, 5, 10 are currently amended. Claims 7 – 8 are currently cancelled. Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 15 are pending and under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
New Grounds of Rejection
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 9 – 10, and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2001/0052372 A1; of record), in view of Dobrinski et al. (DE 102014109914 B4; of record), Dobrinski et al. (DE 202014007647 U1; “ hereinafter “DE’647” ; of record), Krampe (US 2013/0202474 A1; of record), and further in of HORN FRANZ-HARRO (DE 102016013581 A1; “Horn”).
Regarding claim 1. Hayashi et al. teaches a transfer device (1) that transfers a food material [0014], the transfer device comprising:
a screw device (27, see FIG. 1, [0018]); and
a pump device (vane pump 29, see FIG. 1-2) that feeds out a food material transferred by the screw device 27 [0018],
wherein the pump device (29) includes a housing unit (FIGs. 1-2) in which a pump chamber (space between each vanes [0025-0026]) in which a pair of rotors (rotating cylinders 47 having vanes 49; [0025]) are disposed and an upstream channel (41) communicating an outlet of the screw device (27) and an inlet of the pump chamber (see Hayashi’s FIG. 1), and a downstream channel (see the arrow in FIG. 2) communicating with the pump chamber are formed (see FIGs. 1 – 3, and [0024-0026]), and
a pump driving unit (the shafts are also connected to a control motor [0024]) that is capable of driving the pair of rotors to rotate in mutually opposite directions, and receives the food material in a direction following a direction in which the food material is transferred by the screw device (see FIG. 1-2, [0025-0027]),
wherein the housing unit includes a casing that houses the pair of rotors (see FIGs. 1-2).
Hayashi does not disclose the pump housing unit comprises a pair of counter-rotating rotors disposed therein to mesh with each other and to rotate synchronously outward relative to each other, wherein the housing unit includes a casing that houses the pair of counter-rotating rotors, and wherein the pair of counter-rotating rotors are formed such that when each of the counter-rotating rotors is developed on the circumference of a circle concentric with a rotating shaft, a projecting part of each of the counter-rotating rotors forms a V-shape oriented perpendicular to the rotating shaft, and have lobes each having a V-shaped profile, wherein the lobes being meshable with each other, and are attached to the casing interchangeably left and right, and are formed in a cycloid curve, and each of the counter-rotating rotors has two or more and five or less lobes.
Dobrinski et al. teaches spur gears comprising tooth (analogous to the claimed “lobes”) with a cross-sectional profile such as e.g., cycloidal gears/serrations, involute gears/serrations (lines 146-161, lines 214-217; see also lines 111-135; see FIGs. 2-3), further disclosing that spur gear pairings with curved toothing can be characterized by high smoothness, high load capacity, low running noise and increased strength, their serrations are characterized by the ability to (axial) self-centering resulting in the cancelation of axial forces that are inclined to the standing or arcuate toothing sections that may arise, “Accordingly, a corresponding spur gear stage can be configured free of axial force or substantially free of axial force. In other words, no or at most only slight axial bearing forces occur during operation.” (Dobrinski et al. lines 72-78). Dobrinski et al. discloses that cycloidal/involute spur gears can be used in gear pumps for conveying fluids (lines 322-333).
DE’647 teaches gear pumps (FIG. 2) comprising curved toothing (cycloidal gearing/serrations, involute gearing/serrations; DE’647 lines 112-137, lines 181-184), consisting of a housing with an inlet and an outlet, bearings for gears, covers, seals and with two gears arranged in the housing and meshing arcuate gears for conveying the medium to be pumped (Abstract, lines 19-25). DE”647 discloses that said cycloidal/involute gears/serrations can be made to fit existing pumps, since the geometry of the gear can be adjusted within predetermined space conditions, which are dictated by the geometry of the existing pump housing (DE’647 lines 138-167), with the possibility of varying the involute profile, the profile shift or the like, resulting in profile overlap in the axial section, which translates to reduced surface pressure in engagement, leading to an overall increase in the carrying capacity of the toothing (e.g., lobes), improved smoothness in operation due to better distribution of mechanical loads between the contacting teeth (lobes), the arc teeth (lobes) having a higher rigidity compared to straight teeth (lobes), the contact strength and the (endurance) bending strength of the gear improve, whereby the vibroacoustic properties of the gear during operation are positively influenced (DE’647 lines 162-172).
Similarly, Krampe teaches a rotary lobe pump (100) for conveying fluid mediums containing solids (Abstract), wherein both rotary lobes (121, 122) are arranged inside the pump casing (140), preferably inside a pump chamber formed inside the pump casing. The two rotary lobes are driven in opposite directions, their rotary lobe vanes intermeshing to convey the medium (Krampe [0010], see FIGs. 5a, 6a, 16a-16b). The arrangement of the inlet and outlet openings on the connection casing and not on the pump casing has the advantage that the connection casing can be fully integrated via the inlet and outlet openings in a pipe system and that only the pump casing needs to be accessible in order to service the rotary lobe pump (Krampe [0011]-[0014]). A flow space (153), via which inlet opening (111) is in fluidic communication with pump chamber (141), is formed between connection casing (151) and gearbox casing (152). Rotary lobe pump (100) preferably includes an additional flow space (not shown), via which outlet opening (112) is in fluidic communication with pump chamber (141) (Krampe [0072]).
Horn, teaches a rotary positive displacement pump comprising two counter-rotating rotors/lobes formed as V-shaped faces (10), and each of the counter-rotating rotors has two or more and five or less lobes (e.g., 2 in FIG. 1, 4 in FIGs. 2-4, 5 in FIG. 5; see Horn lines 24-50, and FIGs. 3, 4, 6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the pump (29) in the transfer device of Hayashi, with a pump comprising a pump housing unit comprising a pair of counter-rotating rotors disposed therein to mesh with each other and to rotate synchronously outward relative to each other, as taught by any of Dobrinski, DE’647, Krampe and/or Horn (e.g., Krampe [0010], see FIGs. 5a, 6a; Horn’s 10) formed in a cycloid curve, as suggested and taught by any of the prior art of Dobrinski et al., DE’647, Krampe and/or Horn, and wherein the pair of rotors have lobes each having a V-shaped profile (e.g., Horn’s 10), the lobes being meshable with each other (e.g., Horn FIGs. 3-4), and are attached to the casing (e.g., see DE’647 FIG. 2, Krampe FIG. 5a), and capable to be attached interchangeably left and right, and each of the counter-rotating rotors has two or more and five or less lobes, as taught by Horn, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07:
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the pump (29) of Hayashi with the pump of the prior art of any of Dobrinski et al., DE’647, Krampe and/or Horn, for the purpose of e.g., providing the pump (29) of Hayashi with a pair of counter-rotating rotors formed in a cycloid curve free of axial force or substantially free of axial forces occurring during operation, as taught by Dobrinski et al. lines 72-78, since DE’647 teaches that the rotors can be retrofitted to existing pump housings (DE’647 lines 138-167), wherein the geometry of the rotors is designed to provide improved smoothness in operation due to better distribution of mechanical loads between the contacting teeth (lobes), whereby the vibroacoustic properties of the gear during operation are positively influenced, as taught by DE’647 lines 162-172. See MPEP 2144 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 2. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the transfer device according to claim 1, wherein the housing unit includes the casing that rotatably supports one end of a rotating shaft of each of the pair of counter-rotating rotors, and a lid that rotatably supports the other end of the rotating shaft of each of the pair of counter-rotating rotors and is fitted with the casing (see DE’647 FIG. 2, and Krampe FIGs. 5a, 16a-16b).
Regarding claim 3. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the transfer device according to claim 2, wherein the pump chamber is defined by the casing having a bottom face (e.g., DE’647 FIG. 2, Krampe 160) facing one end face of each of the counter-rotating rotors (see DE’647 FIG. 2, and Krampe FIGs. 5a, 16a-16b) and arc-shaped side faces each surrounding a part of an outer locus of a corresponding one of the counter-rotating rotors rotating (see DE’647 FIG. 2), and by the lid facing the other end face of each of the counter-rotating rotors (see the annotated copy of DE’647 FIG. 2 below). In the below annotated copy of FIG. 2 of DE’647, the annotations were added by the Examiner to facilitate the discussion of DE’647.
PNG
media_image1.png
617
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the transfer device according to claim 3, wherein the arc-shaped side face is formed in an area at least covering adjacent lobes of the counter-rotating rotor (see the above annotated copy of DE’647 FIG. 2; also, Krampe FIG. 5a pump casing 140 is arc-shaped and covers the adjacent rotary lobes 121, 122).
Regarding claim 5. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the transfer device according to claim 3, wherein an outlet of the pump chamber is narrower than the inlet of the pump chamber (e.g., Hayashi [0024] discloses “An inlet 41 is formed on the pump casing 39 so as to be broader at the end nearest the screw housing 31. At the other end of the inlet 41, which is narrower than the end nearest the screw housing 31, a vertical rotating shaft 43 is rotatably positioned (FIG. 2).”).
Regarding claim 6. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the transfer device according to claim 1, wherein the downstream channel (see the arrow in Hayashi’s FIG. 2) includes an inlet channel (e.g., Hayashi’s FIG. 2, between the rotors and 59; this will still apply to modified Hayashi with the pump rotary lobes of Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe) communicating with an outlet of the pump chamber (e.g., see Hayashi’s FIG. 1, 53 communicating with the channel formed in 59), a connecting channel communicating with the inlet channel, and an outlet channel communicating with the connecting channel, and wherein the inlet channel and the outlet channel are disposed in a bent manner so that a direction in which the food material flows downstream inside the inlet channel differs from a direction in which the food material flows downstream inside the outlet channel (see Hayashi’s FIG. 2, the arrow shows the flow movement “in a bent manner”).
Regarding claim 9. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the transfer device according to claim 1, wherein the screw device (e.g., Hayashi 27) includes a horizontal screw (33A, 33B), and wherein each of the counter-rotating rotors of the pump device has a vertical rotating shaft (e.g., Hayashi’s orientation of the shaft in the pump 29 is vertical, and modified Hayashi with the pair of counter-rotating rotors of Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe to have the shaft vertical would have not change the operation of the pump device, and therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C): It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 10. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the transfer device according to claim 9, wherein the horizontal screw includes two parallel screws (see Hayashi’s FIG. 1), except for, wherein a distance between rotation center axes of the screws is larger than a distance between rotation center axes of the counter-rotating rotors.
However, DE’647 teaches that said cycloidal/involute gears/serrations can be made to fit existing pumps, since the geometry of the gear can be adjusted within predetermined space conditions, which are dictated by the geometry of the existing pump housing (DE’647 lines 138-167).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify by routine experimentation, the relative dimensions between a distance between rotation center axes of the screws and a distance between rotation center axes of the counter-rotating rotors in the apparatus of Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component, for the purpose, as suggested by DE’647, of finding the desired size and geometry depending on the existing pump housing. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A):
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
Regarding claim 12. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the transfer device according to claim 1, wherein the pump device includes, on a base on which the screw device is mounted, the pump driving unit that drives the counter-rotating rotors to rotate (e.g., see Hayashi’s FIG. 2; DE’647 FIG. 2; Krampe e.g., FIG. 6a transmission unit 150 [0077]), and wherein the housing unit is detachably attached to the screw device and the pump driving unit (see Hayashi’s FIG. 1 & 2, in FIG. 2 two notches at the housing unit can be seen above the character 33B, to which the housing is detachably attached to the screw device, as can be seen in FIG. 1; see Krampe FIG. 7a and [0052], [0074]-[0075]). Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the housing unit detachably attached to the screw device and the pump driving unit in the transfer device of Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe, as taught by Krampe, since it have been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(C).
Regarding claim 13 and claim 14. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches a food shaping apparatus comprising: a first transfer device (Hayashi 17) that transfers a first food material to a combining nozzle (13, see Hayashi FIG. 1); a second transfer device (15) that transfers a second food material to the combining nozzle (13, see Hayashi FIG. 1); and the combining nozzle (13) that combines the first food material and the second food material, wherein the first transfer device and/or the second transfer device is the transfer device according to claim 1 (see the discussion of claim 1 above; and the discussion of claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 15. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the food shaping apparatus according to claim 14, further comprising: a cutting device that is provided below the combining nozzle and cuts bar-shaped food dough ejected from the combining nozzle into food pieces (see Hayashi [0015]); and a conveyance device (25) that is provided below the cutting device and conveys the food pieces (see Hayashi FIG. 3).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2001/0052372 A1; of record), in view of Dobrinski et al. (DE 102014109914 B4; of record), Dobrinski et al. (DE 202014007647 U1; “ hereinafter “DE’647”; of record), Krampe (US 2013/0202474 A1; of record), and HORN (DE 102016013581 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huan (TW-L231747-B; of record).
Regarding claim 11. Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn teaches the transfer device according to claim 1, wherein each of the counter-rotating rotors of the pump device has a vertical rotating shaft (see the discussion of claim 9), except for, wherein the screw device includes a vertical screw.
In the same field of endeavor of transfer devices for food material, Huang teaches a screw device includes a vertical screw (e.g., see FIG. 5 screw 95, which allows to add a filling inside the food material as it is transfer through the combine nozzle 50, lines 156-157; FIG. 6 material screw 62, which allows “The main material of rod 7 2 to the material of material B, so make the middle layer of the filling funnel 9 downward and vertical to the container A and B.” lines 106-124).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transfer device of Hayashi/Dobrinski/DE’647/Krampe/Horn, so that the screw device includes a vertical screw, as taught by Huang, with good expectations of success, and the results would have been predictable e.g., modifying the screw device with the screw 95 of Huang and the combination nozzle 50, and/or with Huang’s vertical screw device comprising screw 62 (FIG. 6), hence making the transfer device able to add a filling inside the food material, as taught by Huang. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nicolas et al. (US 2005/0147518 A1): see FIGs. 1-4 and [0018] “Referring to FIGS. 2, 3 and 4 the gears 22,24 are shown in greater detail. A plurality of herringbone teeth 30 are spaced circumferentially around the circumference of the gears 22,24. Each of the teeth 30 is of a generally herringbone shape having helix side portions 32 and a curved central portion 34. As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 the teeth 30 are spaced apart a predetermined pitch P. The curved central portion 34 extends circumferentially of the gear a distance P/2 equal to at least 1/2 the pitch P of the teeth 30.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742