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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1,15 and 17 have amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending and examined as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4-8,11,12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Loon (WO2007145516A2, Fig. 1-3).
With regards to claim 1, Van Loon discloses a food processing apparatus (device for accelerated draining of food, Title), comprising: a basket retainer configured to support a basket of consumable items above a food processing device (fork 10 configured to support basket 5 above housing 2, Fig. 1); and a reciprocating agitator configured to impart a repetitive contact to the basket retainer, thereby inducing motion of the consumable items within the basket (two dimensional actuator for setting a wire basket 5 through fork 10 into reciprocal movements in two dimensions, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 2, Van Loon discloses wherein the agitator includes a vibrator (actuator has solenoids 18 and 19 which vibrate the rod 11, Fig. 3).
With regards claim 4, Van Loon discloses wherein the reciprocal motion is along a first direction (fork 10 moves in a horizontal component 12, Fig. 2), and the agitator is configured to induce an additional motion in the basket retainer in a second direction (fork 10 moves in a vertical component 13, Fig. 2), wherein the second direction is normal to the first direction (horizontal component 12 is different than vertical component 13, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 5, Van Loon discloses wherein the reciprocal motion is vertically oriented with respect to the basket retainer (fork 10 movement has a vertical component 13, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 6, Van Loon discloses wherein the reciprocal motion is horizontally oriented with respect to the basket retainer (fork 10 movement has a horizontal component 12, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 7, Van Loon discloses wherein the basket retainer is configured to contact one of an edge of the basket (fork 10 contacts an edge of basket 5, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 8, Van Loon discloses wherein the basket retainer includes a hook (fork 10, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 11, Van Loon discloses wherein the reciprocating agitator reciprocates at a frequency of 0-6Hz (the reciprocal movement amounts to a maximum of about 100Hz which 0-6Hz is in range of, page 3, lines 6-11).
With regards to claim 12, Van Loon discloses wherein the reciprocating agitator is configured such that the repetitive contact is interspersed with a lack of contact between the reciprocating agitator and the basket (two dimensional actuator for setting a wire basket 5 into reciprocal movements in two dimensions where the fork 10 has space and vibration cause the basket 5 to vibrates and jump , Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 13, Van Loon discloses wherein the food processing device is a fryer (deep fryer 1, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Loon (WO2007145516A2, Fig. 6 and 7).
With regards to claim 1, Van Loon discloses a food processing apparatus (device for accelerated draining of food, Title), comprising: a basket retainer configured to support a basket of consumable items above a food processing device (wheel 316 configured to support basket 315 above housing 2, Fig. 7); and a reciprocating agitator configured to impart a repetitive contact to the basket retainer, thereby inducing motion of the consumable items within the basket (shaft 317 rotating about arrow 318 to induce shaking movement of basket 315 via wheel 316, Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 3, Van Loon discloses wherein the agitator comprises a rotary output (wheel 316, Fig. 7) and a linkage pivotally secured at an end thereof to the rotary output such that the linkage induces the reciprocal motion of the basket retainer via rotation of the rotary output (shaft 317 rotating about arrow 318 to induce shaking movement of basket 315 via wheel 316, Fig. 7).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Loon (WO2007145516A2, Fig. 1-3) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sinnet et al (US20200046168A1).
With regards to claim 9, Van Loon does not disclose wherein the agitator comprises a pneumatic cylinder configured to impart the repetitive contact to a handle of the basket.
Sinnet et al teaches a robotic kitchen assistant including an agitator that comprises a pneumatic cylinder configured to impart the repetitive contact to a handle of the basket (robotic arm adapter assembly 210 includes an agitator assembly 280 having a pneumatic actuator 282, Fig. 12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Van Loon and Sinnet et al before him or her, to modify the handle of Van Loon to include the pneumatic cylinder of Sinnet al because the combination allows increased acerbation of draining food in a frying apparatus
With regards to claim 10, Van Loon discloses wherein the reciprocal motion is vertically oriented with respect to the basket retainer (fork 10 movement has a vertical component 13, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Loon (WO2007145516A2, Fig. 1-3) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Dorsten et al (US8051795B2).
With regards to claim 14, Van Loon does not disclose wherein the basket retainer comprises a guide having a base configured to be positioned adjacent a basket mounting position on the food processing apparatus, wherein the basket guide narrows from the base to an uppermost portion, wherein opposing guide surfaces of the basket guide extend from the uppermost portion toward the base and are configured to horizontally align a basket holder with respect to the basket mounting position as the basket holder descends toward the basket mounting position.
Dorsten et al teaches wherein the basket retainer comprises a guide having a base configured to be positioned adjacent a basket mounting position on the food processing apparatus (attachment mount 90 has a upper flange 154 attached to a back wall 150 to hold basket 160, Fig. 6), wherein the basket guide narrows from the base to an uppermost portion (upper flange 154 is a narrow piece extending from an upper surface of attachment mount 90, Fig. 6), wherein opposing guide surfaces of the basket guide extend from the uppermost portion toward the base and are configured to horizontally align a basket holder with respect to the basket mounting position as the basket holder descends toward the basket mounting position (hook 168 of basket 160 aligns horizontally and vertically with the upper flange 154, Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Van Loon and Dorsten et al before him or her, to modify the fork and basket of Van Loon to include the attachment mount and hook of Dorsten et al because the combination allows a mechanically sound mounting for a basket in an automated food processing apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 15-19 are allowable. Claims 15-19 are allowable because the prior art does not disclose or teach a second extension defining a second handle opening configured to receive the handle and a sensor configured to determine a proximity of the handle to the second handle opening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Examiners response: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach wherein “the reciprocating agitator reciprocates at a frequency of 0-6Hz”. Van Loon discloses wherein the reciprocating agitator reciprocates at a frequency of 0-6Hz (the reciprocal movement amounts to a maximum of about 100Hz which 0-6Hz is in range of, page 3, lines 6-11). The maximum range of 100hz will include 0-100hz which includes the claimed range.
Applicants’ arguments: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Examiners response: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach wherein “wherein the reciprocating agitator is configured such that the repetitive contact is interspersed with a lack of contact between the reciprocating agitator and the basket.”. Van Loon discloses wherein the reciprocating agitator is configured such that the repetitive contact is interspersed with a lack of contact between the reciprocating agitator and the basket (two dimensional actuator for setting a wire basket 5 into reciprocal movements in two dimensions where the fork 10 has space and vibration cause the basket 5 to vibrates and jump , Fig. 3). Applicant has not limited the structure to enable the lack of contact between the reciprocating agitator in the claim. The best it is understood is that repetitive contact is the only configured feature needed to read on the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761