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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Such claim limitations are:
In Claims 1 and 6: “heating means”
In Claims 1 and 7: “motor drive means”
In Claims 1, 2, and 5: “transfer means”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 01/23/2023 for what each claim limitations are being interpreted as:
Interpretations:
Heating means is being interpreted as “heating means 18 comprise a burner” (Paragraph 57).
Motor drive means is being interpreted as “motor drive means 19 comprise: a ring gear 27, coaxial to the main axis X and extending on the external surface of the containment jacket 17; a motor 28, such as, though not exclusively, an electric motor, with a pinion 29; a flexible longitudinal element 30, such as a belt or chain” (Paragraph 63).
Transfer means is being interpreted as “The transfer means 22 comprise: a recharge opening 23, clearly visible in figures 5 to 8, defined on the tubular body 13, and a deflection plate 24 extending between the inner surface of the tubular body 13 and the containment jacket 17, said deflection plate 24 being configured to divert the granular material M from the recirculation gap 20 to the recharge opening 23” (Paragraph 41).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappello (IT Patent No. PD20120193) in view of Fritzberg (US Patent No. 3555992) and further in view of Hay (US Patent No. 5802961).
Regarding Claim 1, Cappello teaches a structure of a machine for cooking snacks in a salt bath, comprising (Paragraph 3 and Figure 3, Apparatus for cooking snacks in salt bath): a load-bearing frame (Paragraph 49, Load bearing Frame); a mixing drum (Figure 3, Mixing drum 12), comprising a tubular body extending along a main axis (Figure 3, Mixing drum 12 is made of a tubular body and extends along an axis), an inlet mouth (Figure 3, Inlet Mouth 14), an outlet mouth and a feed screw (Figure 3, Outlet Mouth 15 and Screw Feeder 13), inside said tubular body extending between said inlet mouth and said outlet mouth (Figure 3, Tubular Body extends from Inlet Mouth 14 to Outlet Mouth 15.), said feed screw being configured to force a plurality of elements placed inside said tubular body to advance from said inlet mouth towards said outlet mouth (Paragraph 36, Screw Feeder 13 moves Snacks 17, inside the tubular body, from Inlet Mouth 14 to Outlet Mouth 15); a containment jacket (Figure 3, External Jacket 19), which is configured to enclose said mixing drum and is integral with it (Figure 3, External Jacket 19 encloses Drum 12); a recirculation gap defined between said mixing drum and said containment jacket (Figure 3 and Paragraph 39, Gap 22 exists between External Jacket 19 and Drum 12); a sieving zone defined within said containment jacket for separating said elements, inside said tubular body, from a bath of granular material in which said elements are immersed (Figure 3 and Paragraph 39, Section 20 has multiple Sieving Holes 21 that allow slat grains to separate from the Snakes 17 and into the Gap 22); motor drive means for continuously rotating said containment jacket and said mixing drum integral with it (Paragraph 44 and Figure 3, Motorization means 11 rotates external jacket 19 with Drum 12 attached to it); said mixing drum, said containment jacket and said recirculation gap being coaxial with respect to said main axis (Figure 3 and Paragraph 41, Mixing Drum 12 , External jacket 19 and Gap 22 are Coaxial along an axis), at said inlet mouth being present transfer means configured to move said granular material from said recirculation gap into said mixing drum (Paragraph 40, At the inlet mouth 14, a series of windows 23 are defined on the drum 12 so salt grains 26, carried by the second auger 18, from Gap 22 towards the inside of the mixing drum 12).
Cappello fails to teach a heating means, in the form a burner, configured to heat said bath of granular material.
Fritzberg teaches an apparatus for heating food products using dry granular (Abstract, Apparatus for heating food products using dry granular) with a heating means configured to heat said bath of granular material (Figure 1, Heat source 31 such as a gas burner operates below Cylinder 12 and heats the heat exchange material).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cappello to incorporate a burner as stated in Fritzberg. The gas burner is capable of heating the Kiln and heat exchange material to the required temperature (Col 2 Line 24-27, Burner).
Cappello in view of Fritzberg fails to teach that the main axis is tilted with respect to a reference horizontal plane, with said outlet mouth which is placed at a height above the ground which is greater than a corresponding height above the ground of said inlet mouth.
Hay teaches an apparatus for heating a particulate product while transferring the product in a heat exchange medium (Col 1 Line 15-17, Heating Apparatus using a Heat Exchange Medium) where the main axis is tilted with respect to a reference horizontal plane (Figure 3-4 and Col 10 Line 11-13, Apparatus 200 is inclined upwards with respect to horizontal plane), with said outlet mouth which is placed at a height above the ground which is greater than a corresponding height above the ground of said inlet mouth (Figure 3, Product outlet 222 is at a height higher from the ground than product inlet 214).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cappello in view of Fritzberg to incorporate the arrangement of having the outlet mouth placed at a height above the ground greater than a corresponding height of the inlet mouth as stated in Hay. The orientation of the apparatus allows the outlet 222 to lead to an inlet to another apparatus, therefore multiple apparatuses can stack with each other to create a multi stage system (Col 10 Line 51-65, Multi stage).
Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, Cappello in view of Fritzberg and Hay teaches that the containment jacket defines a rotating chute for returning said granular material from said outlet mouth towards said inlet mouth (Cappello: Paragraph 40 and Figure 3-4, External Jacket 19, a series of windows 23, and paddles 40 define a rotating chute to carry salt grains 26, carried by the second auger 18, from the outlet to inlet).
Regarding Claim 4, Cappello in view of Fritzberg and Hay teaches that the recirculation gap, between said outlet mouth and said deflection plate, is empty and is available to be crossed by said granular material (Cappello: Figure 2, Gap 22, between inlet 14 and outlet 15 and Paddle 40 can be empty and allows salt to travel through).
Regarding Claim 6, Cappello in view of Hay fails to teach that the heating means are positioned in such a way that they operate at least below said containment jacket with respect to an arrangement of use of the machine structure.
Fritzberg teaches an apparatus for heating food products using dry granular (Abstract, Apparatus for heating food products using dry granular) where the heating means are positioned in such a way that they operate at least below said containment jacket with respect to an arrangement of use of the machine structure (Figure 1, Heat source 31 such as a gas burner operates below Cylinder 12 with respect to an arrangement of use of the machine structure).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maurer to incorporate the arrangement of the heating means below the containment jacket as stated in Fritzberg. Since the dry granular material is located at the bottom of the Cylinder 12, the heat sources located at the bottom would be able to heat the dry material directly (Figure 2, Heat Source).
Furthermore, The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7, Cappello in view of Fritzberg and Hay teaches that the motor drive means comprise: a ring gear, coaxial to said main axis and extending on the external surface of said containment jacket (Cappello: Figure 2 and Paragraph 44, External toothing 30 present on the external surface of the external jacket 19 and Coaxial to the apparatus in the x direction (Horizontal direction); a motor with a pinion; a flexible longitudinal element for transmitting the torque from said pinion to said ring gear (Cappello: Figure 1 and paragraph 44, Showcases an electric motor 28 with a pinion connected to a belt 29 which connects to External toothing 30).
Regarding Claim 9, Cappello in view of Hay fails to teach that on each of said front and rear pillars, a support wheel configured to support and guide the rotation of said containment jacket is present.
Fritzberg teaches an apparatus for heating food products using dry granular (Abstract, Apparatus for heating food products using dry granular) where on each of said front and rear pillars (Figure 1-2, Support Block 28 as front pillars and Support Block 30 as rear pillars), a support wheel configured to support and guide the rotation of said containment jacket is present (Figure 1-2, Support Blocks 28 and 30 have wheels 254 and 26. Col 2 Line 15-20 and Figure 1-2, The wheels support Cylinder 12 and guide its rotation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cappello in view of Hay to incorporate support wheels on each pillar as stated in Fritzberg. The rotation of the Kiln applies even heating and allows the heating medium to be scooped onto the conveyor and food products (Col 2 Line 15-27 and Col 4-5 Line 69-6, Support Wheels).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappello (IT Patent No. PD20120193) in view of Fritzberg (US Patent No. 3555992) and further in view of Hay (US Patent No. 5802961) and Edward (GB Patent No. 1577733).
Regarding Claim 3, Cappello in view of Fritzberg and Hay teaches a transfer means comprise with a recharge window opening defined on said tubular body.
Cappello in view of Fritzberg and Hay fails to teach that the transfer means comprise a deflection plate extending between the inner surface of said tubular body and said containment jacket, said deflection plate being configured to divert said granular material from said recirculation gap to said recharge opening.
Edward teaches an apparatus that treats food p products using a salt bed (Page 1 Line 10-15, Salt bed) where the transfer means comprise a deflection plate extending between the inner surface of said tubular body and said containment jacket (Figure 2, Spiral plates 25, reads as deflection plate, is between tube inner drum 13, reads as tubular body, and outer drum 16, which reads as containment jacket), said deflection plate being configured to divert said granular material from said recirculation gap to said recharge opening (Figure 2, Spiral plates 25 moves salt from outer chamber to Tube 24, reads as recharge window and into the inner drum 13 as seen by the arrows labeled 28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cappello in view of Fritzberg and Hay to incorporate a deflection plate as stated in Edward. The plates and the tube allows the salt to be circulated between the inner and outer drum to be used more than once (Page 2 Line 107-117, Circulation).
Regarding Claim 5, Cappello in view of Fritzberg, Hay, and Edward teaches that transfer means comprise an oblique collecting wall extending between the inner surface of said tubular body and said containment jacket (Cappello: Figure 3, Second auger 18 is an oblique walls that is located between the external jacket 19 and drum 12), said oblique collecting wall being configured to divert said granular material towards said deflection plate (Cappello: Figure 2-3 and Paragraph 40 Second auger 18 carries the salt toward the inlet mouth 14 where the Paddles 40 are).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappello (IT Patent No. PD20120193) in view of Fritzberg (US Patent No. 3555992) and further in view of Hay (US Patent No. 5802961) and Huang (CN Patent No. 110679975).
Regarding Claim 8, Cappello in view of Fritzberg and Hay teaches a load-bearing frame (Cappello: Paragraph 49, Load bearing Frame).
Cappello in view of Fritzberg and Hay fail to teach a load-bearing frame that comprises two rear pillars and two front pillars, the front pillars being higher than the two rear pillars.
Huang teaches a drum mixer for food products (Paragraph 4, Drum Mixer) with two rear pillars and two front pillars (Figure 1-2, Showcases two front legs and two back leges), the front pillars being higher than the two rear pillars (Figure 1-2, The two front leges are higher than the two back legs).
Cappello teaches an apparatus that has a load bearing frame. Huang teaches a frame that supports the apparatus with the front legs being higher than the back legs. Therefore, Cappello and Huang both teach frames that provide support to the apparatus. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the even legs of the load bearing frame of Cappello for the uneven legs of the frame of Huang as both are art recognized equivalent for supporting an apparatus. (MPEP 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761