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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: the character “M” in figs. 14 and 17-19. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Although the Instant Application is a 371 Application, PCT rule 11.13 has a similar requirement where “reference signs not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings, and vice versa” (MPEP 1825).
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 20, and 35-36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Recommend positively reciting “both ends” in claims 7 and 20, e.g., “wherein the folding-back unit comprises two ends, and each of both ends of the folding-back unit has a tapered shape
Recommend amending the claims to recite: “folding-back assisting unit…” (line 18 of claim 35 and line 17 of claim 36)
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 the following:
“first production device” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitation is “production.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation includes a “conveyor.” Claim 8 has sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for the “first production device” in this claim.
“transfer member” in claims 1, 14, and 29
The generic placeholder is “member” and the functional limitation is “transfer.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations is a “plate.”
“folding-back guide unit” in claims 1, 14, and 28
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are “folding-back,” “guide,” and “configured to guide an endless conveyor.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations is a “roller” or a “shaft.”
“folding-back unit” in claims 2, 15, and 30
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are “folding-back” and “configured to bend the endless conveyor.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations is a “roller” or a “shaft” (same structure as that required for the “folding-back guide unit”).
“folding-back assist unit” in claims 2, 15, and 30
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitation is “folding-back assist.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations is a second “roller” (in addition to the structure required for the “folding-back unit”).
“fixing member” in claims 4 and 17
The generic placeholder is “member” and the functional limitation is “fixing.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations is a “shaft.”
“cutting device” in claims 13 and 27
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitation is “cutting.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations is a “blade.”
“second production device” in claim 14
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitation is “production.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation includes a “conveyor.”
“another folding-back guide unit” in claim 33
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are “folding-back” and “configured to guide the endless conveyor.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations is another “roller” or another “shaft.”
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.
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 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 5-6, 12-13, 18-19, and 26-27 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 18 recite “wherein a cross-sectional shape of the rotating roller is circular or polygonal.” Claims 5 and 18 are dependent on claims 4 and 17, which recite: “wherein the folding-back unit comprises a rotating roller or a fixing member.” Claims 4 and 17 require that the folding-back unit must include either a roller or a fixing member. Claims 5 and 18 are dependent claims; thus, these claims must further limit claims 4 and 17. However, claims 5 and 18 place a limitation on the roller, which is recited as an alternative in claims 4 and 17. Claims 5 and 18 are indefinite because it is not clear whether the “roller” is a required element within the scope of the claim. For the purpose of the examination, claims 5 and 18 will be interpreted as “wherein the folding-back unit comprises the rotating roller and a cross-sectional shape of the rotating roller is circular or polygonal.”
Claim 6 and 19 recite “wherein the fixing member has a cross-sectional shape including at least a circular arc.” Claims 6 and 19 are dependent on claims 4 and 17, which recite: “wherein the folding-back unit comprises a rotating roller or a fixing member.” Claims 4 and 17 require that the folding-back unit must include either a roller or a fixing member. Claims 6 and 19 are dependent claims; thus, the claims must further limit claims 4 and 17. However, claim 6 places a limitation on the fixing member, which is recited as an alternative in claims 4 and 17. Claims 6 and 19 are indefinite because it is not clear whether the “fixing member” is a required element within the scope of the claim. For the purpose of the examination, claims 6 and 19 will be interpreted as “wherein the folding-back unit comprises the fixing member and the fixing member has a cross-sectional shape including at least a circular arc.”
The term “close” in claims 12 and 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what distance is considered to be close or not close. For example, is 1 mm us considered to be “close?” What if the distance is 11 mm, is this distance close? Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “close,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 13 and 27 recite “wherein the tofu is cut and then transferred to the endless conveyor of the second production device.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the capabilities of the cutting device and conveyor or based on the method for using the cutting device and conveyer. Recommend inserting “configured to” in order to clary that these limitations are not method steps.
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 (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 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 28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takai et al. (US-20100275790-A1, hereinafter Takai ‘790).
Regarding claim 28, Takai ‘790 teaches a tofu continuous production device (fig. 13) comprising:
a first production device comprising an endless conveyor (left conveyor, fig. 13); and
a second production device comprising an endless conveyor (right conveyor, fig. 13),
wherein the tofu continuous production device is configured to transfer tofu from the first production device to the second production device (para 0065), and
wherein the tofu continuous production device further comprises:
a folding-back guide unit (rollers annotated in fig. 13 below) at an end of the production device (left end of right conveyor, fig. 13), the end of the production device being one of a terminal end of the first production device (not explicitly disclosed) and a starting end of the second production device (left end of right conveyor, fig. 13), the starting end of the second production device facing the terminal end of the first production device (construed such that the opposite ends of the conveyors face each other, fig. 13), the folding-back guide unit being configured to guide the endless conveyor of the production device such that the endless conveyor of the production device is bent downward at an acute angle (annotated in fig. 13 below) with respect to a conveyance surface on which the tofu is conveyed (between the two identified rollers below, the conveyor bends downwards at an angle less than 90 degrees relative to the top surface of the belt, which is construed as the claimed “conveyance surface;” fig. 13).
Takai ‘790, fig. 13 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
477
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 30, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein the folding-back guide unit (annotated in fig. 13 above) comprises:
a folding-back unit (left roller with arrow, fig. 13 annotated above) configured to bend the endless conveyor of the second production device downward (belt bends downward right from the roller, fig. 13); and
a folding-back assisting unit (right roller with arrow, fig. 13 annotated above) disposed farther from the terminal end of the first production device (right end of left conveyor, fig. 13) than the folding-back unit and disposed below the folding-back unit (left roller with arrow, fig. 13 annotated), and
wherein the endless conveyor of the second production device bent by the folding-back unit is bridged over the folding-back assisting unit, so that the acute angle (fig. 13, annotated above) is maintained at a bent portion (portion of the belt between the rollers with arrows, annotated fig. 13) of the endless conveyor of the second production device at the folding-back unit.
Regarding claim 31, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein the folding-back guide unit (annotated in fig. 13 above) is provided at the starting end of the second production device (left end of right conveyor, fig. 13),
wherein the first production device (left conveyor, fig. 13) is a continuous coagulation machine (para 0065) in which the endless conveyor comprises any one of a metal belt (“steel belt,” fig. 13), a Teflon belt (para 0051), and a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065), and
wherein the second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13) is any one of a continuous forming machine (fig. 13), a cutting machine (para 0044), a conveying machine (conveyor, fig. 13), and a distribution and alignment machine (“partitioning,” para 0044), in which the endless conveyor comprises any one of a resin filter fabric belt (“resin coated cloth,” para 0019), a Teflon belt (“Teflon,” para 0053), a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065), and a wire net belt (“metal wire,” para 0017).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai et al. (US-20100275790-A1, hereinafter Takai ‘790).
Regarding claim 1, Takai ‘790 teaches a tofu transfer mechanism (forming machine 22, fig. 13) configured to transfer tofu (para 0065) from a first production device (left conveyor, fig. 13) to a second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13) in a tofu continuous production device (fig. 13), the tofu transfer mechanism comprising:
the starting end of the second production device (left end of right conveyor, fig. 13) facing the terminal end of the first production device (right end of left conveyor, fig. 13; construed such that the opposite ends of the conveyors face each other); and
a folding-back guide unit (rollers annotated in fig. 13 above) configured to guide an endless conveyor of the second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13) at the starting end of the second production device (left end of right conveyor, fig. 13) such that the endless conveyor of the second production device is bent downward at an acute angle with respect to a conveyance surface on which the tofu is conveyed (between the two identified rollers above, the conveyor bends downwards at an angle less than 90 degrees relative to the top surface of the belt, which is construed as the claimed “conveyance surface;” fig. 13).
In this embodiment (fig. 13), Takai ‘790 does not explicitly disclose a transfer member disposed so as to bridge a terminal end of the first production device and a starting end of the second production device.
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 9A), Takai ‘790 teaches a transfer member (transfer board 12, fig. 9A; construed as a plate) disposed so as to bridge a terminal end of the first production device (left end of right conveyor, fig .9A) and a starting end of the second production device (right end of left conveyor, fig. 9A).
Takai ‘790, fig. 9A
PNG
media_image2.png
302
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 13, in view of the teachings of fig. 9A, by using a transfer board 12, as taught in fig. 9A, between the conveyors, as taught in fig. 13, in order to use a conventional transfer board that enables a smooth transfer of the tofu from one belt to another belt for the next process, as is known in the art (Takai ‘790, para 0064).
Regarding claim 2, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein the folding-back guide unit (annotated in fig. 13 above) comprises:
a folding-back unit (left roller with arrow, fig. 13 annotated above) configured to bend the endless conveyor of the second production device downward (belt bends downward right from the roller, fig. 13); and
a folding-back assisting unit (right roller with arrow, fig. 13 annotated above) disposed farther from the terminal end of the first production device (right end of left conveyor, fig. 13) than the folding-back unit and disposed below the folding-back unit (left roller with arrow, fig. 13 annotated), and
wherein the endless conveyor of the second production device bent by the folding-back unit is bridged over the folding-back assisting unit, so that the acute angle (fig. 13, annotated above) is maintained at a bent portion (portion of the belt between the rollers with arrows, annotated fig. 13) of the endless conveyor of the second production device at the folding-back unit.
Regarding claim 3, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein an angle α formed by the conveyance surface of the endless conveyor of the second production device and a virtual plane (annotated as a line in fig. 13 below; construed as being a plane in a depth direction) is 90°<α<270° (annotated in fig. 13 below; construed angle is between 90 and 180 degrees; see also fig. 1),
where the virtual plane is defined as a plane obtained by rotating a folding-back surface (surface between the rollers, annotated in fig. 13 above) by 180 degrees about the folding-back unit (dashed line, annotated fig. 13 below), the folding-back surface extending from the folding-back unit toward the folding-back assisting unit (the construed “surface” is between the rollers that were construed as the folding-back unit and the folding-back assisting unit).
Takai ‘790, fig. 13 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
446
748
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein the folding-back unit comprises a rotating roller (left most roller of the right conveyor, fig. 13) or a fixing member (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 5, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein the folding-back unit comprises the rotating roller (left most roller of the right conveyor, fig. 13) and a cross-sectional shape of the rotating roller is circular (circular shape, fig. 13) or polygonal (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 7, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein each of both ends of the folding-back unit (roller, fig. 3B) has a tapered shape (para 0024).
Regarding claim 8, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein a conveyor of the first production device (belt C, left conveyor, fig. 13) comprises any one of a metal belt (“steel belt,” fig. 13), a Teflon belt (para 0051), and a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065).
Regarding claim 9, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein the endless conveyor of the second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13) comprises any one of a resin filter fabric belt (“resin coated cloth,” para 0019), a Teflon belt (“Teflon,” para 0053), a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065), and a wire net belt (“metal wire,” para 0017).
Regarding claim 11, Takai ‘790 teaches a tofu continuous production device (fig. 13) comprising:
the tofu transfer mechanism (forming machine 22, fig. 13) according to claim 1; the first production device (left conveyor, fig. 13); and the second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13).
Regarding claim 12, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein a rearmost end of the first production device (right end of left conveyor, fig. 13) and a foremost end of the second production device (left end of right conveyor, fig. 13) at the folding-back unit are close to each other in a horizontal direction (construed as being close to each other, fig. 13) or in contact with each other in the horizontal direction, or overlap with each other in the horizontal direction (not explicitly disclosed).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai et al. (US-20100275790-A1, hereinafter Takai ‘790) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above and further in view of Sammauro (US-9327915-B1).
Regarding claim 6, Takai ‘790 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the folding-back unit comprises the fixing member and the fixing member has a cross-sectional shape including at least a circular arc.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conveyor systems for food preparation, Sammauro teaches wherein the folding-back unit comprises the fixing member (base portion 32, fig. 3) and the fixing member has a cross-sectional shape (shape of portion 32, fig. 4) including at least a circular arc (nose piece 42, fig. 3; “small radius,” column 2, line 39).
Sammauro, fig. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
458
496
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takai ‘790, in view of the teachings of Sammauro, by using a belt carrying assembly 30, as taught by Sammauro, for the left-most roller of the right conveyor, as taught by Takai ‘790 in fig. 13, in order to use a transfer conveyor with a thin edge and a small nose that defines a small radius, for the advantage of minimizing friction between conveyors as a result of a low friction material with a knife-like edge (Sammauro, column 2, lines 30-45).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai et al. (US-20100275790-A1, hereinafter Takai ‘790) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nakajima et al. (JP-2016149970-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Takai ‘790 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a hardness of the tofu transferred from the first production device is 1 kN/m2 to 100 kN/m2.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conveyor systems for food preparation, Nakajima teaches wherein a hardness of the tofu (tofu sheet 1, fig. 1) transferred from the first production device is 1 kN/m2 to 100 kN/m2 (“hardness is preferably 4.1N to 8.2N,” para 0014; “55 mm wide and 140 mm long,” para 0013; construed as a hardness of .53-1.06 kN/m2).
Nakajima, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
316
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takai ‘790, in view of the teachings of Nakajima, by producing a tofu sheet where the hardness is between 4.1 N to 8.2 N, as taught by Nakaima, using the conveyor system, as taught by Takai ‘790, because if the hardness is greater than 8.2 N, then the tofu becomes too hard and has poor texture, whereas if the hardness is less than 4.1 N, then the tofu is too soft, deteriorating the taste of salads and sushi due to the leakage of moisture from the tofu (Nakaima, para 0014) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 13 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai et al. (US-20100275790-A1, hereinafter Takai ‘790) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 28 above and further in view of Takai et al. (JP-6307354-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Takai ‘354).
Regarding claim 13, Takai ‘790 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a cutting device on the first production device, wherein the tofu is cut and then transferred to the endless conveyor of the second production device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conveyor systems for food preparation, Takai ‘354 teaches further comprising: a cutting device (cutting and aligning means 13 and 15, fig. 1) on the first production device (conveyor 12, fig. 1), wherein the tofu is cut (para 0031) and then transferred to the endless conveyor of the second production device (pack conveyor 155, fig. 1).
Takai ‘354, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
496
794
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takai ‘790, in view of the teachings of Takai ‘354, by using cutting and aligning means 13 and 15, as taught by Takai ‘354, on the left conveyor instead of the right conveyor, as taught in fig. 13 of Takai ‘790, in order to cut the tofu into predetermined shapes and predetermined intervals as soon as possible prior to being packaged on the next conveyor, for the advantage of improving throughput and enabling efficient mass production by shortening the length of the conveyor system and thus the time needed to form the tofu (Takai ‘354, paras 0024 and 0031; Takai ‘790 teaches cutting on the second conveyor, para 0061).
Regarding claim 32, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein the first production device is a continuous forming machine (left conveyor, fig. 13) in which the endless conveyor comprises any one of a resin filter fabric belt (“resin coating,” para 0051), a Teflon belt (para 0051), a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065), and a wire net belt (“metal wire,” para 0051), and
wherein the second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13) is any one of a cutting machine (para 0044), a conveying machine (conveyor, fig. 13), and a distribution and alignment machine (“partitioning,” para 0044), in which the endless conveyor comprises any one of a metal belt (“stainless steel,” para 0053), a resin filter fabric belt (“resin coated cloth,” para 0019), a Teflon belt (“Teflon,” para 0053), a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065), and a wire net belt (“metal wire,” para 0017).
Takai ‘790 does not explicitly disclose wherein the folding-back guide unit is provided at the terminal end of the first production device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conveyor systems for food preparation, Takai ‘354 teaches wherein the folding-back guide unit (annotated in fig. 1 below) is provided at the terminal end of the first production device (right end of conveyor 12, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takai ‘790, in view of the teachings of Takai ‘354, by using the conveyor 12 with cutting and aligning means 13 and 15, as taught by Takai ‘354, instead of the left conveyor, as taught in fig. 13 of Takai ‘790, in order to use a conveyor system that cuts the tofu into predetermined shapes and predetermined intervals as soon as possible prior to being packaged on the next conveyor, for the advantage of improving throughput and enabling efficient mass production by shortening the length of the conveyor system and thus the time needed to form the tofu (Takai ‘354, paras 0024 and 0031; Takai ‘790 teaches cutting on the second conveyor, para 0061).
Regarding claim 33, Takai ‘790 teaches further comprising:
wherein the tofu continuous production device further comprises another folding-back guide unit (annotated in fig. 13 blow) at an end of the production device (right end of second conveyor, fig. 13), the end of the production device being one of a terminal end of the second production device (right end of second conveyor, fig. 13) and a starting end of the third production device (not explicitly disclosed), the another folding-back guide unit being configured to guide the endless conveyor of the production device such that the endless conveyor of the production device is bent downward at an acute angle (annotated in fig. 13 below) with respect to a conveyance surface on which the tofu is conveyed (between the two identified rollers below, the conveyor bends downwards at an angle less than 90 degrees relative to the top surface of the belt, which is construed as the claimed “conveyance surface;” fig. 13).
Fig. 13, Takai ‘790 (annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
446
926
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Takai ‘790 does not explicitly disclose a third production device comprising an endless conveyor, wherein the tofu is transferred from the second production device to the third production device, and the starting end of the third production device facing the terminal end of the second production device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conveyor systems for food preparation, Takai ‘354 teaches a third production device (conveyor 155, fig. 1) comprising an endless conveyor, wherein the tofu is transferred from the second production device (conveyor 12, fig. 1) to the third production device (conveyor 155, fig. 1 , and the starting end of the third production device facing the terminal end of the second production device (construed such that the right end of conveyor 12 and the left end of conveyor 155 face each other, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takai ‘790, in view of the teachings of Takai ‘354, by using an additional conveyor 155, as taught by Takai ‘354, after the right conveyor, as taught by Takai ‘790 in fig. 13, in order to package the tofu after it has been formed and cut, for the advantage of using a separate conveyor that is solely used for packaging, thereby improving quality by using a separate conveyor and enabling efficient mass production (Takai ‘354, para 0024; Takai ‘790 teaches packaging on the second conveyor, para 0044).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Takai ‘790 in view of Takai ‘354 as set forth above regarding claim 33 teaches the invention of claim 34. Specifically, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein the folding-back guide unit (annotated in fig. 13 above) is provided at the starting end of the second production device (left end of right conveyor, fig. 13) and the another folding-back guide unit (annotated in fig. 13 above) is provided at the terminal end of the second production device (right end of second conveyor, fig. 13),
wherein the first production device (left conveyor, fig. 13) is a continuous coagulation machine (para 0065) in which the endless conveyor comprises any one of a metal belt (“steel belt,” fig. 13), a Teflon belt (para 0051), and a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065), and
wherein the second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13) is any one of a continuous forming machine (fig. 13), a cutting machine (para 0044), a conveying machine (conveyor, fig. 13), and a distribution and alignment machine (“partitioning,” para 0044), in which the endless conveyor comprises any one of a resin filter fabric belt (“resin coated cloth,” para 0019), a Teflon belt (“Teflon,” para 0053), a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065), and a wire net belt (“metal wire,” para 0017).
Additionally, Takai ‘354 teaches wherein the third production device (conveyor 155, fig. 1) is any one of a cutting machine (not explicitly disclosed), a conveying machine (“transports,” para 0050), and a distribution and alignment machine (not explicitly disclosed), in which the endless conveyor comprises any one of a metal belt, a resin filter fabric belt, a Teflon belt (not explicitly disclosed), a food belt (moves tofu 16, fig. 1), and a wire net belt (not explicitly disclosed).
Claims 14-18, 20-23, 25-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai et al. (US-20100275790-A1, hereinafter Takai ‘790) in view of Takai et al. (JP-6307354-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Takai ‘354).
Regarding claim 14, Takai ‘790 teaches a tofu transfer mechanism (forming machine 22, fig. 13) configured to transfer tofu (para 0065) from a first production device (left conveyor, fig. 13) to a second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13) in a tofu continuous production device (fig. 13), the tofu transfer mechanism comprising:
the starting end of the second production device (left end of right conveyor, fig. 13) facing the terminal end of the first production device (right end of left conveyor, fig. 13; construed such that the opposite ends of the conveyors face each other); and
In this embodiment (fig. 13), Takai ‘790 does not explicitly disclose a transfer member disposed so as to bridge a terminal end of the first production device and a starting end of the second production device; a folding-back guide unit configured to guide an endless conveyor of the first production device at the terminal end of the first production device such that the endless conveyor of the first production device is bent downward at an acute angle with respect to a conveyance surface on which the tofu is conveyed.
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 9A), Takai ‘790 teaches a transfer member (transfer board 12, fig. 9A; construed as a plate) disposed so as to bridge a terminal end of the first production device (left end of right conveyor, fig .9A) and a starting end of the second production device (right end of left conveyor, fig. 9A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 13, in view of the teachings of fig. 9A, by using a transfer board 12, as taught in fig. 9A, between the conveyors, as taught in fig. 13, in order to use a conventional transfer board that enables a smooth transfer of the tofu from one belt to another belt for the next process, as is known in the art (Takai ‘790, para 0064).
Takai ‘790 does not explicitly disclose a folding-back guide unit configured to guide an endless conveyor of the first production device at the terminal end of the first production device such that the endless conveyor of the first production device is bent downward at an acute angle with respect to a conveyance surface on which the tofu is conveyed.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conveyor systems for food preparation, Takai ‘354 teaches a folding-back guide unit (annotated in fig. 1 below) configured to guide an endless conveyor (conveyor 12, fig. 1) of the first production device at the terminal end of the first production device (right end of conveyor 12, fig. 1) such that the endless conveyor of the first production device is bent downward at an acute angle (annotated in fig. 1 below) with respect to a conveyance surface (top surface of the belt, conveyor 12, fig. 1) on which the tofu is conveyed (tofu 10, fig. 1).
Takai ‘354 fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image8.png
496
856
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takai ‘790, in view of the teachings of Takai ‘354, by using the conveyor 12 with cutting and aligning means 13 and 15, as taught by Takai ‘354, instead of the left conveyor, as taught in fig. 13 of Takai ‘790, in order to use a conveyor system that cuts the tofu into predetermined shapes and predetermined intervals as soon as possible prior to being packaged on the next conveyor, for the advantage of improving throughput and enabling efficient mass production by shortening the length of the conveyor system and thus the time needed to form the tofu (Takai ‘354, paras 0024 and 0031; Takai ‘790 teaches cutting on the second conveyor, para 0061).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Takai ‘790 in view of Takai ‘354 as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 15. Specifically, Takai ‘354 teaches wherein the folding-back guide unit (annotated in fig. 1 above) comprises: a folding-back unit (right most roller of conveyer 12, fig. 1) configured to bend the endless conveyor of the first production device downward (below this right-most roller, the conveyer belt bends downwards, fig. 1); and a folding-back assisting unit (roller to the bottom-left of the construed “folding-back unit,” i.e., annotated in fig. 1 above on the left) disposed farther from the starting end of the second production device (left end of conveyor 155, fig. 1) than the folding-back unit and disposed below the folding-back unit, and wherein the endless conveyor of the first production device bent by the folding-back unit is bridged over the folding-back assisting unit (belt over the conveyor 12 bridges between the two rollers identified above, annotated fig. 1), so that the acute angle (annotated in fig. 1 above) is maintained at a bent portion (portion of the conveyor belt between the two rollers annotated in fig. 1 above) of the endless conveyor of the first production device at the folding-back unit.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Takai ‘790 in view of Takai ‘354 as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 16. Specifically, Takai ‘354 teaches wherein an angle α (annotated in fig. 1 below) formed by the conveyance surface of the endless conveyor of the first production device and a virtual plane (plane along the dotted line annotated in fig. 1 below; construed as extending in a depth direction to create a plane) is 90°<α<270° (construed angle is between 90 and 180 degrees, fig. 1), where the virtual plane is defined as a plane obtained by rotating a folding-back surface by 180 degrees about the folding-back unit (dashed line below is 180 degrees away from the right most roller to the bottom-right roller), the folding-back surface extending from the folding-back unit toward the folding-back assisting unit (surface of the belt between the two identified rollers identified in fig. 1 annotated above).
Takai ‘354, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image9.png
496
794
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Takai ‘790 in view of Takai ‘354 as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 17. Specifically, Takai ‘354 teaches wherein the folding-back unit comprises a rotating roller (right-most roller of conveyor 12, fig. 1) or a fixing member (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Takai ‘790 in view of Takai ‘354 as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Takai ‘354 teaches the folding-back unit comprises the rotating roller (right-most roller of conveyor 12, fig. 1) and wherein a cross-sectional shape of the rotating roller is circular (right most roller of conveyor 12 if circular, fig. 1) or polygonal (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 20, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein each of both ends of the folding-back unit (roller, fig. 3B) has a tapered shape (para 0024).
Regarding claim 21, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein the endless conveyor of the second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13) comprises any one of a metal belt (“stainless steel,” para 0053), a Teflon belt (“Teflon,” para 0053), a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065), and a wire net belt (“metal wire,” para 0017).
Regarding claim 22, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein a conveyor of the second production device is configured to convey the tofu in a direction intersecting with a tofu conveying direction of the first production device (annotated in fig. 13 below).
Fig. 13, Takai ‘790 (annotated)
PNG
media_image10.png
446
809
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein a conveyor of the first production device (belt C, left conveyor, fig. 13) comprises any one of a resin filter fabric belt (“resin coating,” para 0051), a Teflon belt (para 0051), a food belt (carries “tofu,” para 0065), and a wire net belt (“metal wire,” para 0051).
Regarding claim 25, Takai ‘790 teaches a tofu continuous production device (fig. 13) comprising:
the tofu transfer mechanism (forming machine 22, fig. 13) according to claim 1; the first production device (left conveyor, fig. 13); and the second production device (right conveyor, fig. 13).
Regarding claim 26, Takai ‘790 teaches wherein a rearmost end of the first production device (right end of left conveyor, fig. 13) and a foremost end of the second production device (left end of right conveyor, fig. 13) at the folding-back unit are close to each other in a horizontal direction (construed as being close to each other, fig. 13) or in contact with each other in the horizontal direction, or overlap with each other in the horizontal direction (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 27, Takai ‘790 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a cutting device on the first production device, wherein the tofu is cut and then transferred to the endless conveyor of the second production device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conveyor systems for food preparation, Takai ‘354 teaches further comprising: a cutting device (cutting and aligning means 13 and 15, fig. 1) on the first production device (conveyor 12, fig. 1), wherein the tofu is cut (para 0031) and then transferred to the endless conveyor of the second production device (pack conveyor 155, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takai ‘790, in view of the teachings of Takai ‘354, by using cutting and aligning means 13 and 15, as taught by Takai ‘354, on the left conveyor instead of the right conveyor, as taught in fig. 13 of Takai ‘790, in order to cut the tofu into predetermined shapes and predetermined intervals as soon as possible prior to being packaged on the next conveyor, for the advantage of improving throughput and enabling efficient mass production by shortening the length of the conveyor system and thus the time needed to form the tofu (Takai ‘354, paras 0024 and 0031; Takai ‘790 teaches cutting on the second conveyor, para 0061).
Regarding claim 29, Takai ‘790 does not explicitly disclose a transfer member disposed so as to bridge the terminal end of the first production device and the starting end of the second production device.
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 9A), Takai ‘790 teaches a transfer member (transfer board 12, fig. 9A; construed as a plate) disposed so as to bridge the terminal end of the first production device (left end of right conveyor, fig .9A) and the starting end of the second production device (right end of left conveyor, fig. 9A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 13, in view of the teachings of fig. 9A, by using a transfer board 12, as taught in fig. 9A, between the conveyors, as taught in fig. 13, in order to use a conventional transfer board that enables a smooth transfer of the tofu from one belt to another belt for the next process, as is known in the art (Takai ‘790, para 0064).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai et al. (US-20100275790-A1, here