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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 06/30/2026. Claims 24-43 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 24, 28-30, 38-39 have been amended; claims 1-23 cancelled; claims 36, 40-43 have been withdrawn.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Specification filed on 06/30/2026 have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the previous office action dated 04/23/2026.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/30/2026 have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the previous office action dated 04/23/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/30/2026 have created another Claim Objections, see detail below in the Claim Objections section.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/30/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the previous office action dated 04/23/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/30/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the previous office action dated 04/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 Claim Rejections:
Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 06/30/2026 regarding the rejections of independent claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foulon, JR. et al. (US 2009/0092475) – see details on pages 9-10 of the Remarks dated 06/30/2026, have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 24 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foulon, JR. et al. (US 2009/0092475, previously cited), and the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable by Foulon, JR. et al., are withdrawn.
Regaring the second rejection of the independent claim 24 and its dependent claims:
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding independent claim 24 – see detail on page 11 of the Remarks dated 06/30/2026)
Applicant alleged that Kasahara in view of FR’006 does not teach the limitation “wherein the loading conveyor is a belt conveyor with a retractable end configured for selectively extending from the belt conveyor to bring the one or more flat food products from the belt conveyor to one of the at least one outer face of the returning element, and retracting to the belt conveyor away from the outer face” recited in the independent claim 24 – see detail on page 11 of the Remarks dated 06/30/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that the prior art FR’006 operates “in the opposite manner” from amended claim 24 because FR’006 retracts the conveyor end to permit the conveyed articles to fall by gravity. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 24. Specifically, Applicant improperly equates “to bring” with “to deposit”. In this case, claim 24 requires the extending retractable end to bring the product to the receiving surface, it does not require extension of the retractable end to perform the final release or deposition of the product. To be more specific, claim 24 does not require that extension of the retractable end itself constitute the final act of depositing the food product onto the outer face, nor does the claim exclude an arrangement in which subsequent retraction of the conveyor end permits the product to be released by gravity. Rather, claim 24 recites “a retractable end configured for selectively extending from the belt conveyor to bring the one or more flat food products from the belt conveyor to one of the at least one outer face of the returning element, and retracting to the belt conveyor away from the outer face”. FR’006 explicitly teaches such an extend and retract arrangement. Specifically, FR’006 explicitly describes an advancement stage I of the retractable end of the belt conveyor, a deposition stage II performed by retraction of the retractable end of the belt conveyor, and a return stage III to the initial condition. Thus, in the advancement condition illustrated in Fig.1 of FR’006, the retractable end of the conveyor belt is advanced toward the location at which the conveyed product is to be delivered, thereby bringing the product from the conveyor belt to the receiving location. Thereafter, as illustrated in Fig.2 of FR’006, the retractable end of the belt conveyor retracts to the belt conveyor away from the receiving location. Applicant’s reliance on FR’006 statement that retraction causes the products to fall under their own weight does not distinguish the claimed subject matter. That statement merely describes what occurs after the retractable end has advanced the conveyed product to the delivery location and is subsequently withdrawn. Nothing in claim 24 requires the retractable end to remain extended when the product is transferred to the receiving surface, and nothing in claim 24 prohibits gravity assisted deposition during the extension-retraction process. Accordingly, the fact that FR’006 uses retraction of the retractable end of the belt conveyor to complete deposition does not cause FR’006 to operate opposite to the claimed invention. Rather, FR’006 teaches the claimed sequence of the retractable end of the belt conveyor being selectively advanced toward a receiving surface to bring a conveyed product thereto and thereafter being retracted away from that receiving surface. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 24 are not persuasive. Accordingly, Kasahara in view of FR’006 properly teaches all limitations recited in the independent claim 24, see detail in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding dependent claim 25 – see detail on page 12 of the Remarks dated 06/30/2026)
Applicant alleged: “Regarding Claim 25, the Examiner has asserted that it would be obvious to have a flat outer face as a matter of design choice. However, a flat outer face as recited in Claim 25 is not merely a design variation of Kasahara's protruding suction nozzles with rubber suction cups. Kasahara uses nozzles that project outward from the mounting plate - structurally distinct from a flat outer face with air aspiration holes formed directly therein. Furthermore, flat outer faces provide specific functional advantages including uniform surface contact across the entire food product and controlled release when the depression is removed, which protruding nozzles cannot achieve. The combination of Kasahara and FR'006 thus fails to render Claim 25 obvious.” – see detail on page 12 of the Remarks dated 06/30/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 25 are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kasahara’s projecting suction nozzles and rubber suction cups are structurally distinct from “a flat outer face with air aspiration holes formed directly therein”. However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 25 and does not address the Examiner’s mapping. The Examiner has not mapped the Kasahara projecting suction nozzle (a) itself into the claimed outer face. Rather, the nozzle mounting plates 11 disposed about the outer periphery of the drum 12 correspond to the recited outer face. Kasahara discloses that the suction nozzles a are mounted at the nozzle mounting plates 11 and communicate with the suction structure of the rotary aligner. Fig.3 of Kasahara shows that the nozzle mounting plates 11 arranged about the outer periphery of the drum, while the suction nozzles project outwardly from the respective mounting locations. Accordingly, Applicant’s reliance on the projecting configuration of the suction nozzles does not establish that the nozzle mounting plates themselves cannot define a flat outer face. The geometry of a component mounted to a surface is distinct from the geometry of the surface on which that component is mounted.
Applicant further characterizes that the claim requires “a flat outer face with air aspiration holes formed directly therein”. However, neither claim 24 nor claim 25 requires the outer face to be free of components associated with the air aspiration holes. Claim 24 requires that “the at least one outer face is provided with air aspiration holes for maintaining by depression”, claim 25 further requires that the outer face to be flat. The claims do not exclude a suction nozzle or other aspiration structure mounted at and communicating with the outer face. Applicant’s argument that Kasahara cannot satisfy the claim because the food product is held at the tip of the projecting suction nozzle is not persuasive. Claim 24 does not require the food product to contact substantially the entire outer face, nor does it require direct planar contact between the food product and the outer face. Kasahara discloses that dough A is held by suction at the outward-facing portion of the rotary aligner through suction nozzles a, which is mounted at the corresponding nozzle mounting plates 11. Figs.2, 8, 11 of Kasahara show the suction nozzles distributed around the rotary structure and the dough maintained at the respective outward-facing locations as the rotary aligner rotates. Thus, the presence of the suction nozzle a between the food product and the mounting plate does not negate the fact that the food product is maintained by suction at the outer face region of the returning element.
Regarding the limitation “wherein each of the at least one outer face is flat” recited in claim 25, Kasahara nozzle mounting plate 11 are shown as substantially planar plate portions positioned circumferentially about the drum 12. However, Kasahara does not explicitly disclose each of the nozzle mounting plate 11 is exactly flat. Regarding the claim limitation about each of the at least one outer face is flat, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have flat nozzle mounting plates instead of substantially flat nozzle mounting plates (see the nozzle mounting plates 11 in Kasahara Fig.3), because Applicant has not disclosed that the flat outer face provides an advantage that is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem (see Par.0007 of the Instant Application indicating “According to a preferred embodiment, each of the at least one outer face is flat.”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with flat or substantially flat shape of outer face, because both shapes perform the function of mounting the nozzles on for holding the food product equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Such a modification would merely constitute a predictable change in the local geometry of the nozzle while preserving the same mounting arrangement, pneumatic communication, suction function, and rotary transport of the food product. The suction nozzle could remain mounted at the same location and operate in the same manner regardless of whether the supporting plate surface is substantially flat or flat.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., uniform surface contact across the entire food product and controlled release when the depression is removed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Examiner would like to note that neither claim 24 nor claim 25 requires uniform contact across the entire food product, full area engagement between the food product and the outer face, or any particular release behavior resulting from such contact. Applicant therefore relies on function characteristics that are not recited in the claims. Furthermore, the Instant Application does not establish that having a perfectly flat mounting plate produces an unexpected result or a different mode of operation.
Accordingly, Applicant has not shown that providing Kasaraha nozzle mounting plates 11 with flat outer surfaces would alter the operation or function of the rotary aligner. The modification would preserve the suction nozzles, the aspiration function, and the ability to retain and transport the food product while rotating. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 25 are not persuasive, and thus, the rejection of claim 25 is maintained in this Office Action, see detail in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejection section below.
Additionally, Examiner would like to note that Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 26-35, 37-38 are the same as those provided for the independent claim 24; therefore, the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claim 24 generally applies to dependent claims 26-35, 37-38.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claim 39, Applicant’s amendments filed on 06/30/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. The amended claim 39 is now rejected by the newly combination of Kasahara in view of FR’006 and further in view of Foulon in this Office Action, see detail in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejection section below.
Claim Objections
Claims 36, 39-43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 36, 40-43 stated “(withdrawn)”, however, these claims appear to be canceled. See 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Claim 39 appears to cancel the limitation “control” and replace “control” with “controller” in line 2. However, the previously presented claim 39 recites “control unit” in line 1 [see claim 39 in Claims filed on 01/24/2023] instead of “control” only; therefore, the “control unit” is supposed to be canceled and replaced with “controller” if Applicant intended to claim “controller” instead of “control unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 24-31, 35, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP H06329249 A, previously cited) in view of (FR 2587006 A1, hereinafter FR’006, previously cited).
Regarding claim 24, Kasahara discloses a unit (system as shown in Kasahara Fig.1) for returning one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1), said unit (system as shown in Kasahara Fig.1) comprising:
a returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) configured for rotating (see the rotation arrow in Kasahara Fig.1 & indicated by Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 3) around a rotating axis (rotating axis is the central longitudinal axis of the rotary aligner 3, see the rotary aligner 3 in Kasahara Figs.1 & 2) and provided with at least one outer face (nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) (Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 6 discloses: “The nozzle mounting plate (11) is closely attached to a plurality of axial slit-shaped openings formed in the outer periphery of the drum (12) at equal intervals in the circumferential direction, so that a plurality of suctions are made in the axial direction.”) for receiving the one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) to be returned (as shown in Kasahara Fig.1);
wherein the at least one outer face (nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) is provided with air aspiration holes (air aspiration holes are holes where the nozzles (a) are connected to the nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) (Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 6 discloses: “As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, this rotary aligner has rubber suction cups (10) at its tip at a predetermined interval in the width direction, and a suction nozzle (a) having a through hole formed therein is provided upright. The nozzle mounting plate (11) is closely attached to a plurality of axial slit-shaped openings formed in the outer periphery of the drum (12) at equal intervals in the circumferential direction, so that a plurality of suctions are made in the axial direction.”) for maintaining by depression (Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 3 discloses: “Then, the rice cracker dough (A) held at the tip of the second vibrating feed chute (5) is sucked and held by the tip of the suction nozzle (a) of the rotating rotary aligner (3), as described below.”, and Kasahara Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 8 discloses: “the inside of the cavity (13) is exhausted by a blower (Q) (not shown) through the air suction hole (23) of the drum support shaft (16), so that the adsorbed cloth is held at the tip of the nozzle.”) the one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) on the outer face (nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) when the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) is rotated with the outer face (nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) oriented downwardly (as shown in Fig.1); and
a loading conveyor (loading conveyor includes the inclined conveyor 2, first vibrating feed chute 4 & second vibrating feed chute 5, Kasahara Fig.1) configured for loading the one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) on one of the at least one outer face (one of the nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) of the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) (Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 3 discloses: “As shown in FIG. 1, the rice cracker dough automatic aligning apparatus includes a stocker (1) for storing dried rice cracker dough, an inclined conveyor (2) for conveying the dough in the stocker (1) upward, and the conveyor. From the first vibrating feed chute (4) and the second vibrating feed chute (5), the dough falling from (2) is fed to the tip so that it is surely adsorbed to the rotary aligner (3) and arranged in multiple rows. And a rotary aligner (3), and the tip of a dough transfer wire net conveyor (6) for introducing the rice cracker dough into the baking furnace was installed below the rotary aligner (3). Then, the rice cracker dough (A) held at the tip of the second vibrating feed chute (5) is sucked and held by the tip of the suction nozzle (a) of the rotating rotary aligner (3), as described below.”);
the loading conveyor (loading conveyor includes the inclined conveyor 2, first vibrating feed chute 4 & second vibrating feed chute 5, Kasahara Fig.1) configured to bring the one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) from the loading conveyor (loading conveyor includes the inclined conveyor 2, first vibrating feed chute 4 & second vibrating feed chute 5, Kasahara Fig.1) to one of the at least one outer face (one of the nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) of the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1).
Kasahara does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the loading conveyor is a belt conveyor with a retractable end configured for selectively extending from the belt conveyor to bring the one or more flat food products from the belt conveyor to one of the at least one outer face of the returning element, and retracting to the belt conveyor away from the outer face.
FR’006 teaches a conveyor system (FR’006 Fig.1):
wherein the loading conveyor (loading conveyor, FR’006 annotated Figs.1-2 below) is a belt conveyor (as shown in FR’006 Figs.1-2 and indicated by FR’006 Translated Document on page 2 line 14) with a retractable end (retractable end, FR’006 annotated Fig.2 below) configured for selectively extending from the belt conveyor (loading conveyor is belt conveyor, FR’006 annotated Figs.1-2 below) to bring the one or more flat food products (food products, FR’006 annotated Fig.2 below) from the belt conveyor (loading conveyor is belt conveyor, FR’006 annotated Figs.1-2 below) to one of the at least one outer face of the returning element, and retracting to the belt conveyor (loading conveyor is belt conveyor, FR’006 annotated Figs.1-2 below) away from the outer face (FR’006 Figs.1-2 teaches that the retractable end configured for selectively extending from the belt conveyor and retracting to the belt conveyor away from the food receiver. It is noted that by substituting the Kasahara first and second vibrating chutes (see the first and second vibrating chutes 4 & 5 in Kasahara Figs.1, 15) with the FR’006 loading conveyor with selectively retractable end (see FR’006 annotated Figs.1-2 below), in combination, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the loading conveyor is a belt conveyor with a retractable end configured for selectively extending from the belt to bring the one or more flat food products from the belt to one of the at least one outer face of the returning element, and retracting to the belt away from the outer face).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
865
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Kasahara first and second vibrating chutes (see the first and second vibrating chutes 4 & 5 in Kasahara Figs.1, 15) with the FR’006 loading conveyor with selectively retractable end (see FR’006 annotated Figs.1-2 above), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of transferring the food products to the returning element. MPEP 2143 I (B). Furthermore, the modification avoids deformation and stacking of food products, and provides controlled, smooth, and gentle transfer of food products to the returning element, thereby minimizing damage of food products compared to the vibration of chutes.
Regarding claim 25, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the at least one outer face is flat.
Regarding the claim limitation about each of the at least one outer face is flat, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have flat nozzle mounting plates instead of substantially flat nozzle mounting plates (see the nozzle mounting plates 11 in Kasahara Fig.3), because Applicant has not disclosed that the flat outer face provides an advantage that is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem (see Par.0007 of the Instant Application indicating “According to a preferred embodiment, each of the at least one outer face is flat.”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with flat or substantially flat shape of outer face, because both shapes perform the function of mounting the nozzles on for holding the food product equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Regarding claim 26, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, Kasahara also discloses:
wherein the at least one outer face (nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) comprises a first outer face (first outer face, Kasahara annotated Fig.7 below) and a second outer face (second outer face, Kasahara annotated Fig.7 below) opposed to the first outer surface (first outer face, Kasahara annotated Fig.7 below) (Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 6 discloses: “The nozzle mounting plate (11) is closely attached to a plurality of axial slit-shaped openings formed in the outer periphery of the drum (12) at equal intervals in the circumferential direction, so that a plurality of suctions are made in the axial direction.”; therefore, the nozzle mounting plates 11 comprises a first outer face and a second outer face opposed to the first outer surface, or see the annotated first outer face and second outer face in Kasahara annotated Fig.7 below. It is noted that since the plurality of nozzles (a) are formed on the surface of each of the nozzle mounting plates 11, thus, the location where nozzle a3 is mounted on is interpreted as the first nozzle mounting plate 11, and the location where nozzle a7 is mounted on is interpreted as the second nozzle mounting plate 11, see Kasahara annotated Fig.7 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, Kasahara also discloses:
wherein the at least one outer face (nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) comprises more than two outer faces distributed around the rotating axis (rotating axis is the central longitudinal axis of the rotary aligner 3, see the rotary aligner 3 in Kasahara Figs.1-3) (Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 6 discloses: “The nozzle mounting plate (11) is closely attached to a plurality of axial slit-shaped openings formed in the outer periphery of the drum (12) at equal intervals in the circumferential direction, so that a plurality of suctions are made in the axial direction.”; therefore, Kasahara discloses more than two outer faces distributed around the rotating axis, see Kasahara Fig.3).
Regarding claim 28, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, Kasahara also discloses:
wherein the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) is elongate along the rotating axis (rotating axis is the central longitudinal axis of the rotary aligner 3, see the rotary aligner 3 in Kasahara Figs.1-3) and each of the at least one outer face (each of nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) is subdivided in several areas (since each of the nozzle mounting plate 11 contains plurality of nozzles (a) formed therein; thus, the nozzle mounting plate 11 is subdivided in several areas, wherein each area contains a single nozzle (a), Kasahara Fig.3) each for receiving one of the one or more flat food products (each nozzle (a) receives one rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) (since each of the nozzle mounting plate 11 contains plurality of nozzles (a) formed therein; thus, each area that has each nozzle (a) for receiving one of the one or more rice cracker dough A, as shown in Kasahara Figs.1-3, 15).
Regarding claim 29, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, Kasahara also discloses:
wherein the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) comprises a vacuum chamber (cavities 13, Kasahara Fig.3) in fluid connection with the air aspiration holes (air aspiration holes are holes where the nozzles (a) are connected to the nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) for each of the at least one outer face (each of nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) (Kasahara Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 8 discloses: “the inside of the cavity (13) is exhausted by a blower (Q) (not shown) through the air suction hole (23) of the drum support shaft (16), so that the adsorbed cloth is held at the tip of the nozzle.”).
Regarding claim 30, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, Kasahara also discloses:
wherein the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) forms a hollow profile (hollow profile, Kasahara annotated Fig.3 below) extending along the rotating axis (rotating axis is the central longitudinal axis of the rotary aligner 3, see the rotary aligner 3 in Kasahara Figs.1-3) and showing a cross-section with at least one outer wall forming the at least one outer face (outer wall forming nozzle mounting plate 11, Kasahara annotated Fig.3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
594
843
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, Kasahara also discloses further comprising
an unloading conveyor (conveyor 6, Kasahara Fig.1) located below the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) and configured for receiving the one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) in a returned state (as shown in Kasahara Fig.1 & Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 3 discloses: “When the cloth (A) reaches a position close to the upper side of the wire mesh conveyor (6), the cloth is aligned laterally by the positioning stopper (9) and the suction holding force is released at the same time, so that the cloth falls on the conveyor (6)”).
Regarding claim 35, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, Kasahara also discloses further comprising
at least one vacuum pump (“blower (not shown) as a pressure reducing device for reducing pressure”, Kasahara Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 2) fluidly connected to the air aspiration holes (air aspiration holes are holes where the nozzles (a) are connected to the nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) of the at least one outer face (nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) of the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) (Kasahara Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 2 discloses: “Flexible hoses (26) are attached to both ends of both sides of the drum support shaft (16) for supporting the drum (12), and the tips of the flexible hoses (26) are sucked by a blower (not shown) as a pressure reducing device for reducing pressure. Connected to the side. With such a configuration, a plurality of cavities (13) corresponding to the plurality of plate openings (15) of the end face plate (14) communicating with the hook-shaped openings (22) of the air distributor (17). Since the inside is depressurized, the rice cracker dough adsorbed to the tip of the suction nozzle (a) attached to these cavities (13) is retained as it is.”, and Kasahara Claim 1 on page 8 of Translated Document discloses: “In a rice cracker dough automatic aligning device consisting of a rotary aligner that sucks with a vacuum suction nozzle installed and rotates the drum to align it on the conveyor for transferring the rice cracker dough below, the cavity penetrating in the axial direction is surrounded.”; therefore, Kasahara discloses at least one vacuum pump connected to the air aspiration holes of the at least one nozzle mounting plate 11 of the rotary aligner 3).
Regarding claim 38, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 35, Kasahara also discloses
wherein the fluid connection of the at least one vacuum pump (as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 35 above) is located at one or two ends of the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) along the rotating axis (rotating axis is the central longitudinal axis of the rotary aligner 3, see the rotary aligner 3 in Kasahara Figs.1-3) (It is noted that the limitation “at one or two ends” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required. In this case, Kasahara discloses at least one end because Kasahara Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 2 discloses: “Flexible hoses (26) are attached to both ends of both sides of the drum support shaft (16) for supporting the drum (12), and the tips of the flexible hoses (26) are sucked by a blower (not shown) as a pressure reducing device for reducing pressure. Connected to the side. With such a configuration, a plurality of cavities (13) corresponding to the plurality of plate openings (15) of the end face plate (14) communicating with the hook-shaped openings (22) of the air distributor (17). Since the inside is depressurized, the rice cracker dough adsorbed to the tip of the suction nozzle (a) attached to these cavities (13) is retained as it is.”, see the hoses 26 in Kasahara Fig.2).
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP H06329249 A, previously cited) in view of (FR 2587006 A1, hereinafter FR’006, previously cited), and further in view of Haas et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0069283 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 32, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 31, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the unloading conveyor forms a main conveyor extending on an entry side of the unit, the loading conveyor being configured for collecting the one or more flat food products from the main conveyor.
Haas teaches a unit for returning flat food products (Haas Abstract & Fig.2):
wherein the unloading conveyor (part of the conveyor 22 that is located downstream of the product removal apparatus 35 (i.e., the left side of the product removal apparatus 35 because Haas Par.0063 teaches: “The circulating baking tong chain 22 is moved in the upper transport level 23 from the front end 25 of the baking oven 20 backwards towards the rear end 26 of the baking oven 20.”), Haas Fig.2) forms a main conveyor (continuous conveyor 22, Haas Fig.2) extending on an entry side (front end 25, Haas Fig.2) of the unit (baking oven 20, Haas Fig.2), the loading conveyor being configured for collecting the one or more flat food products from the main conveyor (continuous conveyor 22, Haas Fig.2) (It is noted that by making the unloading conveyor of Kasahara to form a main conveyor extending on an entry side of the unit, in combination, Kasahara in view of FR’006 and Haas teaches the loading conveyor being configured for collecting the one or more flat food products from the main conveyor because the loading conveyor 2 of Kasahara is the inclined conveyor, see Kasahara Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kasahara in view of FR’006 unit, by making the unloading conveyor forms a main conveyor extending on an entry side of the unit, so that the loading conveyor being configured for collecting the one or more flat food products from the main conveyor, as taught by Haas, in order to enable continuous transport of food products through multiple processing stations, thus, allow the food products to be conveyed without interruption through loading, processing, returning, removal states, thereby improving throughput and operational efficiency.
Regarding claim 34, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the air aspiration holes on each of the at least one outer face comprise several of the air aspiration holes distributed in a direction perpendicular to the rotating axis for each of the one or more flat food products.
Haas teaches a unit for returning flat food products (Haas Abstract):
wherein the air aspiration holes (air aspiration holes are holes where removal elements 78 are connected to the transverse rods 80, Haas Figs.6a & 6c; each air aspiration hole corresponds to each removal element 78 because Haas Abstract teaches: “Located in the output station is a product removal apparatus having a horizontally disposed rotary framework which carries removal elements configured as suction elements disposed along its outer circumference, by way of which the rotating rotary framework removes the baked products from the opened baking tongs.”) on each of the at least one outer face (each of transverse rods 80, Haas Figs.6a & 6c) comprise several of the air aspiration holes (since there are several removal elements 78 on each transverse rod 80, as shown in Haas Figs.6a & 6c; thus, there are several air aspiration holes, wherein each air aspiration hole corresponds to each removal element 78) distributed in a direction (longitudinal direction of the transverse rod 80) perpendicular to the rotating axis (rotating axis is the longitudinal axis of rotary framework 70, see the rotary framework 70 in Figs.6a-6c) for each of the one or more flat food products (Haas Abstract teaches: “Located in the output station is a product removal apparatus having a horizontally disposed rotary framework which carries removal elements configured as suction elements disposed along its outer circumference, by way of which the rotating rotary framework removes the baked products from the opened baking tongs.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Kasahara air aspiration holes distribution direction (see the nozzles (a) in Kasahara Figs.1-3) with the Haas air aspiration holes distribution direction (see the removal elements 78 Haas Figs.6a & 6c), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing suction elements to suck and retain the food products on the returning element. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP H06329249 A, previously cited) in view of (FR 2587006A1, hereinafter FR’006, previously cited), Haas et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0069283 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Huang (CN 110506767 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 33, Kasahara in view of FR’006 and Haas teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 32, Haas also teaches:
wherein the main conveyor (continuous conveyor 22, Haas Fig.2) comprises cooking inductors (elongate inductors 29 and 30, Haas Fig.2) attached to each other (as shown in Haas Fig.2 and Haas Par.0065 teaches: “The baking oven 20 is provided with an electrical induction heater which provides elongate inductors 29, 30 disposed in both transport levels 23 and 24 in each case above and below the orbit of the baking tongs 28”) along a main direction (right to left direction because Haas Par.0063 teaches: “The circulating baking tong chain 22 is moved in the upper transport level 23 from the front end 25 of the baking oven 20 backwards towards the rear end 26 of the baking oven 20.”) of the main conveyor (continuous conveyor 22, Haas Fig.2) and configured for receiving along the main direction (right to left direction because Haas Par.0063 teaches: “The circulating baking tong chain 22 is moved in the upper transport level 23 from the front end 25 of the baking oven 20 backwards towards the rear end 26 of the baking oven 20.”), each one of the one or more flat food products (“products”, Haas Par.0066) (since the conveyor 22 is continuous conveyor; therefore, the elongated inductors configured for receiving along the main direction, each one of the one or more food products.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kasahara in view of FR’006 and Haas unit, by adding cooking inductors attached to each other along a main direction of the main conveyor and configured for receiving along the main direction, each one of the one or more flat food products, as taught by Haas, in order to provide heating of food products during transport, thereby allowing processing to occur without interrupting transport. Thus, improve processing efficiency, product quality, and system integration.
Kasahara in view of FR’006 and Haas does not explicitly teach:
cooking plates
Huang teaches a unit for processing food products (Huang Abstract & Fig.1) comprising:
cooking plates (heating plates 11 and 14, Huang Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Kasahara in view of FR’006 and Haas cooking inductors (see the Haas elongated inductors 29 and 30 in Haas Fig.2) with the Huang cooking plates (see the Huang heating plates 11 and 14 in Huang Fig.1), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of heating transport food products. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP H06329249 A, previously cited) in view of (FR 2587006A1, hereinafter FR’006, previously cited), and further in view of Arthur et al. (U.S. Patent No. 1,590,401 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 37, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 35, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the fluid connection of the at least one vacuum pump is angularly rotatable relative to the returning element, the returning element being actuated for rotating in a same rotational direction.
Arthur teaches a rotary drum (Arthur Fig.1):
wherein the fluid connection of the at least one vacuum pump (“VACUUM PUMP”, Arthur Fig.1) is angularly rotatable relative to the returning element (Arthur on page 2 lines 30-36 teaches: “The hollow shaft is provided with the usual swivel joint (not shown) so that a low pressure or vacuum may be maintained within the hollow shaft and manifold 24 and which during certain phases of rotation of the drum will be communicated to the various compartments 20.”; since the swivel joint is classic rotary joint, thus, the swivel joint allows the fluid connection of the vacuum pump angularly rotatable relative to the drum), the returning element being actuated for rotating in a same rotational direction (Arthur teaches the drum is rotatable (Title & on page 1 lines 1-2), and Arthur teaches the rotating drum is connected to the vacuum pump through fluid connection provide with swivel joint, as explained above; therefore, the drum being actuated for rotating in a same rotational direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kasahara in view of FR’006 unit, by adding swivel joint into the fluid connection between the returning element and the vacuum pump of Kasahara so that the fluid connection of the at least one vacuum pump is angularly rotatable relative to the returning element, the returning element being actuated for rotating in a same rotational direction, as taught by Arthur, in order to accommodate continuous rotation of the returning element while maintain uninterrupted vacuum communication. Thereby preventing twisting or fatigue of the fluid hose and improving operational reliability.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP H06329249 A, previously cited) in view of (FR 2587006A1, hereinafter FR’006, previously cited), and further in view of Foulon, JR. et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0092475 A1, hereinafter Foulon, previously cited).
Regarding claim 39, Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 24, and also teaches:
the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) and the loading conveyor (loading conveyor, FR’006 annotated Figs.1-2 below; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of independent claim 24 above) are configured to perform, successively and iteratively, bringing one or more of the one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) on one of the at least one outer face (nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) of the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) (the loading conveyor is configured to bringing one or more of the one or more flat food products on one of the at least one outer face of the returning element, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of independent claim 24 above), applying the depression to the one or more of the one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) through the air aspiration holes (air aspiration holes are holes where the nozzles (a) are connected to the nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) (Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 6 discloses: “As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, this rotary aligner has rubber suction cups (10) at its tip at a predetermined interval in the width direction, and a suction nozzle (a) having a through hole formed therein is provided upright. The nozzle mounting plate (11) is closely attached to a plurality of axial slit-shaped openings formed in the outer periphery of the drum (12) at equal intervals in the circumferential direction, so that a plurality of suctions are made in the axial direction.”) of the outer face (nozzle mounting plates 11, Kasahara Fig.3) (Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 3 discloses: “Then, the rice cracker dough (A) held at the tip of the second vibrating feed chute (5) is sucked and held by the tip of the suction nozzle (a) of the rotating rotary aligner (3), as described below.”, and Kasahara Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 8 discloses: “the inside of the cavity (13) is exhausted by a blower (Q) (not shown) through the air suction hole (23) of the drum support shaft (16), so that the adsorbed cloth is held at the tip of the nozzle.”), rotating the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) so as to return the one or more of the one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) (see the rotation arrow in Kasahara Fig.1 & indicated by Kasahara Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 3), and releasing the depression so that the one or more of the one or more flat food products (rice cracker dough A, Kasahara Fig.1) separate from the returning element (rotary aligner 3, Kasahara Fig.1) by gravity (Kasahara Translated Document on page 5 paragraphs 2-7 discloses releasing the depression so that the rice cracker dough A separate from the rotary aligner by gravity, specifically, Kasahara Translated Document on page 5 paragraphs 2-7 discloses: “Of it the position of the closed portion (27), connected to a .sub.1 in the high-pressure blower of the right end portion of the opposite side (FIG. 7) (P), the adsorption of the fabric so linked to the a .sub.2 blowers (Q) And holding is performed without problems. And further drum (12) is a blower through hook opening (22) of the cavity until the suction nozzle is rotated to reach the position a .sub.6 'immediately before the lowermost (13) within an air distribution pipe (17) (Q ), The dough is held at the tip of the suction nozzle. Large through subsequently drum (12) straight opening cavity (13) in which the suction nozzle has been evacuated under reduced pressure until it come to position a .sub.7 'of the lowermost by rotation communicating with atmosphere (21 ") The pressure is increased to atmospheric pressure, and the dough holding force of the suction nozzle is lost because the right end (Fig. 7) side is closed, and the rice cracker dough (A) drops away from the nozzle. The fall position will be more accurate.
The positioning of the falling of the rice cracker dough when the rice cracker dough drops from the suction nozzle (a) will be described. That is, as shown in FIGS. 9 (a) (b) (c),
On the left side of the rotary aligner, the suction nozzle (a) that adsorbs and holds the rice cracker dough (A) has a straight opening (21 ") whose cavity (13 ') is the atmospheric opening due to the rotation of the drum.
When approaching, the air opening of the cavity (13 ') gradually expands, and the holding force of the cloth (A) of the suction nozzle (a) becomes weak (FIG. 9 (b)). At this time, since the position where the dough (A) drops from the suction nozzle (a) is aligned by the positioning stopper (9), the front and rear rice cracker doughs do not overlap on the wire mesh conveyor (6). Thus, the falling position of the rice cracker dough can be arbitrarily set by the rotary aligner (3) and the positioning stopper (9). Therefore, even if the suction position of the rice cracker dough is slightly shifted when it is sucked by the suction nozzle, the rice cracker dough can be aligned while being aligned with the positioning stopper when being dropped and aligned on the wire mesh conveyor.
In this way, the rotary aligner surely sucks the rice cracker dough held at the tip of the second vibrating feeding chute (5) of FIG. 1 by the suction nozzle (a) of the rotating drum,
It is held and then falls at a predetermined position on the wire mesh conveyor (6) without overlapping the front and rear dough and without opening too much. The dough has an uneven distribution and can be baked uniformly. Further, in the present invention, only when the suction nozzle of the rotary aligner adsorbs the dough from the feed chute (5), the high depressurizing force of the high pressure blower is used to strongly adsorb the dough, and it is reduced until it is dropped on the conveyor. Since the dough is held in the suction nozzle by utilizing the suction force of a normal blower with a small pressure, all the steps from suction to immediately before dropping are uniformly evacuated as in the conventional case, which corresponds to the high decompression force of the present invention.”).
Furthermore, it is noted that the secondary reference FR’006 further teaches a controller (“electrical box (22) grouping together the different servos: rear limit switch (18), front limit switch (19), photoelectric cell(15), (16)”, FR’006 Translation Document on page 3 – fifth paragraph from the bottom of page 3) configured for controlling the loading conveyor to bring one or more of the one or more flat food products on one of the at least one outer face of the returning element (It is noted that Kasahara in view of FR’006 teaches the loading conveyor to bring one or more of the one or more flat food products on one of the at least one outer face of the returning element, as cited, explained, and incorporated in the rejection of independent claim 24 above; additionally, FR’006 Translation Document on page 3 – fifth paragraph from the bottom of page 3 teaches: “The operation of the distribution device can be completely automated using an electrical box (22) grouping together the different servos: rear limit switch (18), front limit switch (19), photoelectric cell(15), (16). Under these conditions, if the distributor device is no longer supplied with objects bymachine A, it stops automatically.”. Therefore, FR’006 teaches a controller configured to control the loading conveyor to bring one or more of the one or more flat food products on one of the at least one outer face of the returning element)
PNG
media_image1.png
548
865
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kasahara in view of FR’006 unit, by adding controller configured to control the loading conveyor to bring one or more of the one or more flat food products on one of the at least one outer face of the returning element, as taught by FR’006, in order to improve repeatability and timing of product transfer, reduce reliance on manual actuation, and ensure that the retractable end of the conveyor moves through its intended extended and retracted positions in response to product detection and position feedback.
However, Kasahara in view of FR’006 does not explicitly teach:
a controller configured for controlling the returning element to apply the depression to the one or more of the one or more flat food products through the air aspiration holes of the outer face, rotate the returning element so as to return the one or more flat food products, and release the depression so that the one or more of the one or more flat food products separate from the returning element by gravity.
Foulon discloses a unit (destacking device 10, Foulon Figs.1-2) for returning one or more flat food products (planar food product or tortilla 102a/102b, Foulon Figs.6, 11) (Foulon Abstract teaches: “Disclosed herein is a destacking device for dispensing planar food products, such as tortillas, from a stack bottom”), said unit (destacking device 10, Foulon Figs.1-2) comprising:
a controller (electric control assembly 30, Foulon Fig.2) configured for controlling the returning element (drum 70, Foulon Fig.6), successively and iteratively (Foulon Par.0020 teaches: “an electric control assembly 30 for controlling the drive assembly 26 and the vacuum assembly 28 (and, in some embodiments, the belt motor 18 of the portable food processing assembly line 14)”, and Foulon Par.0059 teaches: “the operation of the FIGS. 12A-12F to repeat itself, but with respect to the next bottommost tortilla 102 b, the second-next bottommost tortilla, the third-next bottommost tortilla, etc.”), applying the depression to the one or more of the one or more flat food products (planar food product or tortilla 102a, Foulon Fig.6) through the air aspiration holes (suction holes 126, Foulon Figs.7A-7B) of the outer face (suction lip 124, Foulon Fig.6) (Foulon teaches applying depression to the tortilla 102a through suction holes 126 of the suction lip 124 because Foulon Par.0020 teaches the electric control assembly 30 for controlling the vacuum assembly 28, Foulon Par.0037 teaches: “the application of a vacuum to the second fluid conduit 142 by the vacuum assembly 28 "sucks" the bottommost tortilla 102a of the stack 102 against the forward suction holes 126 to close same, thereby permitting further communication of the vacuum to the air cylinder to induce the air cylinder to move to its second position closing the suction lip 124”, and Foulon Par.0055 discloses: “Delivery of the vacuum to the forward hollow casing 138 has "sucked" at least a forward portion of the bottommost tortillas 102a against the forward vacuum holes 126 of the suction lip 124.”), rotating the returning element (drum 70, Foulon Fig.6) so as to return the one or more flat food products (planar food product or tortilla 102a, Foulon Fig.6) (Foulon Par.0020 teaches the electric control assembly 30 is configured to control the drive assembly 26, and Foulon Par.0047 teaches the reciprocation of the carriage assembly 22, together with the cable assembly 50, causes the drum 70 to alternate between clockwise motion and counterclockwise motion, and Foulon Pars.0056-0059 & Figs.12B-12F teaches the drum 70 has continued its rotation), and releasing the depression so that the one or more of the one or more flat food products (planar food product or tortilla 102a, Foulon Fig.6) separate from the returning element (drum 70, Foulon Fig.6) by gravity (Foulon teaches releasing the depression so that the tortilla separate from the drum by gravity because Foulon Par.0020 teaches the electric control assembly 30 is configured to control the vacuum assembly 28, Foulon Par.0046 discloses: “The vacuum assembly 28 further includes first and second pumps 200, 202 and first and second pump conduits 204, 206 for communicating the positively pressurized air from the solenoid valve 194 to the first and second pumps 200, 202, respectively (when the solenoid valve 194 permits the passage of such pressurized air).”, and Foulon Par.0058 discloses: “ The drum 70 has rotated counterclockwise to a position about one-hundred ninety degrees apart from the position of FIG. 12A. In response to sensing the metal flange 222, the second proximity sensor 198 has sent an electric signal to the solenoid valve 194, thereby deactivating the flow of positively pressurized air to the pumps 200, 202. The venturi effect induced by the pumps 200, 202 ceases and the negative pressure is released, thereby allowing the tortilla 102a to separate from the rear and forward vacuum holes 118, 126 by virtue of a substantially downward gravitational force.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kasahara in view of FR’006 unit, by adding controller configured for controlling the returning element to apply the depression to the one or more of the one or more flat food products through the air aspiration holes of the outer face, rotate the returning element so as to return the one or more flat food products, and release the depression so that the one or more of the one or more flat food products separate from the returning element by gravity, as taught by Foulon, in order to automate and coordinate these sequential operations, thereby providing consistent and repeatable handing, transport, and release of the food products. The modification would also save operating time and improve productivity.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Irving (U.S. Patent No. 3,375,917 A) discloses an endless belt for vacuum suspension of bakery products, the belt having a backing sheet and a product engaging skin; a plurality of closely spaced conical passages through the belt to present a plurality of the larger openings of the passages to each product for delicate handling thereof; and the exposed surface of the skin including the passages being pliable and more dense than the interior body thereof to present a smooth wearing face to the product.
Abler (U.S. Patent No. 5,174,431 A) discloses an apparatus for transferring individual slices of food material from a food material supply source to a support member including at least two rotating hollow drums disposed on and rotating around two associated stationary inner drums. The first rotating drum is disposed proximate to the food material supply, while the second rotating drum is disposed proximate to the support member and the first rotating drum. The stationary drums have hollow inner cores to which negative air pressure in the form of a vacuum is supplied which causes individual material slices to adhere to the outer shell of the first drum and transfer to the outer shell of the second drum.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights