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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-11 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/21/2026. The traversal is on the ground that “[t]he RLMC shown in Fig. 7 also comprises a helical joint, namely elements 732 and 734, in addition to the prismatic joint formed by elements 724 and 730” [page 4 of Applicant’s reply].
Applicant’s specification describes Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 as two different examples of a rotation-to-linear-movement-converter (RLMC) located between a motor and a quick-disconnecting mechanism (paras. [0021] and [0022] of Applicant’s filed specification). Examiner agrees with applicant’s remarks that the embodiment of Fig. 7 requires a helical joint and a prismatic joint, while the embodiment of Fig. 6 only requires a helical joint. However, the embodiment of the RLMC in Fig. 6 is a separate embodiment from that of Fig. 7, because the embodiment of Fig. 6 requires the motor (102) to be connected to a helical joint (620, comprising elements 622 and 624), while the embodiment of Fig. 7 requires the motor (702) to be connected to a prismatic joint (comprising elements 724 and 730). In the embodiment of Fig. 6, element 624 slides over element 622 (elements 622 and 624 are part of the helical joint); in the embodiment of Fig. 7, element 730 slides over element 724 (elements 724 and 730 are part of the prismatic joint). While the embodiment of Fig. 7 also includes a helical joint, this helical joint does not have one element that slides over another element. That is, the helical joint in Fig. 7 (comprising elements 732 and 734) is not the same as the helical joint in Fig. 6 (comprising elements 622 and 624). Accordingly, the office’s position is that Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show two separate species of the RLMC. The embodiment of Fig. 6 corresponds to claims 5-7 and 12-13, and the embodiment of Fig. 7 corresponds to claims 8-11 and 14-15. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-7 and 12-13 have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 recites, “configured to slid.” This should recite “configured to slide.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Woning (US 2015/0259152).
Regarding claim 1, Van Der Woning discloses a food ingredient dispenser unit (DiU), comprising: a food-ingredient-cartridge (FIC) (Fig. 1, “hopper 10” [0014]); and a conveying-screw (CoS) (Fig. 1, “screw blade 124” [0017]); wherein, the CoS is configured to be associated with the FIC (Fig. 1 shows wherein “loose product 30” [0014] is dispensed toward screw blade 124 via “openings 12, 112” [0014]) and to convey food ingredients from the FIC toward an opening of the DiU (Fig. 1, loose product 30 is conveyed toward the opening shown at the right side of screw blade 124 in Fig. 1; opening is shown as “product outlet 114” in Fig. 2B); and wherein a first end of the CoS is associated with a cork (Fig. 1, first end of the CoS is the right end shown in Fig. 1; cork / “sealing device 126b”, “sealing device 126a, 126b may, for instance, be connected to the screw blade 124 itself” [0022]) that is configured to block the opening of the DiU when the DiU is not-active (Figs. 2A and 3A show wherein cork / sealing device 126b blocks the opening).
In addition to structural limitations, claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “for an automated-cooking-apparatus.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
PNG
media_image1.png
563
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Van Der Woning
PNG
media_image2.png
367
945
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2A and 2B of Van Der Woning
Regarding claim 2, Van Der Woning discloses wherein a second end of the CoS is associated with a motor via a rotation-to-linear-movement-converter (RLMC) (Fig. 1, second end of the CoS is the left end shown in Fig. 1; “drive motor 170” [0028]; “extruder 100 may further include a drive mechanism to selectively rotate and translate the screw blade 124” [0028]; “The drive mechanism may further include a rotary-to-linear-motion converter” [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Van Der Woning discloses when the DiU be activated, the motor starts turning the CoS in order to convey food ingredients, the beginning of the rotation of the motor is converted to linear movement by the RLMC and pushes the CoS with the cork away from the motor enabling following turns of the CoS to convey food ingredients from the DiU (Fig. 3B shows wherein the cork / sealing device 126b is pushed away from the motor; “ When such extrusion of loose product 30 is desired, the drive shaft 160 may first be rotated in the first sense of rotation R.sub.2, as shown in FIG. 3B. Through the intermediation of the rotary-to-linear-motion converter, the rotation of the drive shaft 160 causes the downstream or axially outward displacement of the screw feeder 120 within the bore 116. As the screw feeder 120 moves downstream, the first sealing device 126b is forced from the bore 116 and out of the product outlet 114. The removal of the first sealing device 126b from the bore 116 leaves the bore 116 unsealed and capable of facilitating transport of loose product 30 from the product inlet 112 to the product outlet 114” [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Van Der Woning discloses when the DiU be inactivated, the motor starts turning in the other direction causing the RLMC to pull the CoS with the cork back toward the motor until the cork blocks the opening of the DiU (Fig. 3D shows wherein the cork / sealing device 126b is pulled back toward the motor to block the opening; “the drive mechanism may be configured to enable such operation of the screw blade 124 exclusively through a drive shaft 160 that is rotatably driveable in opposite senses of direction R.sub.1, R.sub.2, for instance by an electric drive motor 170” [0028]; “When a desired amount of loose product 30 has been extruded, the sense of rotation of the drive shaft 160 may again be reserved, as shown in FIG. 3D. By virtue of the re-engaging rotary-to-linear-motion converter, the further rotation of the drive shaft 160 in the first sense of rotation R.sub.1 now causes the retraction of the screw blade 124 into the bore 116 of the housing 110” [0044]).
PNG
media_image3.png
702
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3A-3D of Van Der Woning
Regarding claim 5, Van Der Woning discloses wherein the RLMC comprises an helical-joint having an internal part and an external part and where in the external part is configured to slid over the internal part (Figs. 2A and 2B, helical-joint comprising internal part / “connection member 142” comprising “hub portion 143” [0034] and external part / “gear wheel 140” [0037]; Figs. 2A and 2B together show wherein 140 slides over 143).
Regarding claim 6, Van Der Woning discloses wherein the internal part (connection member 142) of the helical-joint is configured to be associated with the axis of the motor (the ‘axis of the motor’ corresponds to the axis of “drive shaft 160” [0036] shown in Fig. 2B; internal part / connection member 142 is ‘associated with’ the axis of the motor and drive shaft 160 because, as shown in Fig. 2A, when elements 142 and 160 are operational, these elements are ‘associated with’ each other).
Regarding claim 12, Van Der Woning discloses a spring between the second end of the CoS and the RLMC (Fig. 2B, spring / “helically wound coil 166c”; “wire 166 may define a helically wound coil 166c. The coil 166c may extend around the worm shaft 164 of the worm 162, while one of the first and second ends 166a, 166b of the wire 166 may be connected to the drive shaft 160” [0032]; Fig. 2 shows wherein the spring / coil 166c is located between the second end (left side) and the RLMC).
Regarding claim 13, Van Der Woning discloses wherein the spring is configured to push the external part of the helical-joint toward the internal part of the helical-joint when the motor starts turning in the other direction (“rotation of the drive shaft 160 in the first sense of rotation R.sub.1 causes loosening of the coil 166c, such that the coil substantially disengages the worm shaft 164 and fails to cause its rotation in the first sense of rotation R.sub.1, while rotation of the drive shaft 160 in the second sense of rotation R.sub.2 causes tightening of the coil 166c, such that the coil 166c frictionally engages the worm shaft 164 of the worm 162 and causes its rotation in the second sense of rotation R.sub.2” [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 7 requires wherein the internal part has a slot directed toward its edge and wherein the external part has a pin that penetrates the slot such that when the motor turns the internal part the pin in the slot moves forward in a linear motion pushing the external part away from the motor. Van Der Woning discloses wherein the internal part (Fig. 2B, connection member 142) has a slot (Fig. 2B, “slot 144” [0034]). Van Der Woning also discloses wherein another element (“worm wheel 180” has a pin (Fig. 2B, “pin 184” [0033]) that penetrates the slot. However, this pin is not part of the ‘external part’ / “gear wheel 140” that slides over internal part / connection member 142. Additionally, it would not have been obvious to modify Van Der Woning to include the limitations of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gordin et al. (US 2022/0002090) is directed to an ingredient feeder for an automated cooking apparatus [Abstract]. Zhou (CN 107187815) is directed to a spiral feeder [Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
