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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/24/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the term “the pump” in line 7 should read as “the at least one pump”. Claims 2-3 are also objected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the term “the pump” in line 8 should read as “the at least one pump”.
Regarding claim 5, the term “the outlets” in line 1 should read as “the multiple outlets”. Claim 6 is also objected as being dependent upon claim 5.
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 an 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitations “means for selectively obstructing at least one of the outlets” in the 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.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, “means for selectively obstructing at least one of the outlets” being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0043 “There are other means by which selection of the inlets and outlets that receive and dispense sauce can be made, including computer-actuated valves, solenoids connected to the rod 58 and other apparatuses that will become apparent from the disclosure herein to a person having ordinary skill”.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,700, 859 (hereby “Frea”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter of the present applicant and that of the claims of the patent are substantially the same and the claimed subject matter of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the claimed subject matter of the claims of the patent.
Regarding claim 1, Frea discloses, an apparatus for applying a fluent food to a substantially circular food product (see “An apparatus for applying pizza sauce to a pizza crust” in claim 1), the apparatus comprising:
(a) a manifold (see “a manifold disposed above a tray that is for holding and rotating the crust” in claim 1) having at least one inlet (see “at least first and second inlets” in claim 1) in fluid communication with at least one outlet (see “multiple outlets” in claim 1), wherein the at least one outlet is positioned directly above a tray for holding the circular food product (see “the outlets are positioned directly above the crust” in claim 1);
(b) at least one pump (see “first pump” in claim 1) in fluid communication with the at least one inlet and a reservoir for holding fluent food, wherein the pump is configured to pump fluent food from the reservoir to the at least one inlet and then out of the at least one outlet to the circular food product below (see “first pump in fluid communication with at least the first inlet and at least one source of pizza sauce for conveying pizza sauce from the at least one source of pizza sauce to at least the first inlet” in claim 1); and
(c) a rotary prime mover (see “rotary motor” in claim 1) disposed beneath the tray and drivingly linked to the tray and configured to rotate the circular food product relative to the manifold as the fluent food is dispensed out of the at least one outlet to the circular food product below (see “a rotary motor disposed beneath the crust and drivingly linked to the tray for rotating the tray relative to the manifold as the pizza sauce is dispensed out of at least one of the outlets” in claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Frea discloses, the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one outlet comprises multiple outlets (see “multiple outlets” in claim 1) that are configured to be selectively actuated to dispense fluent food on the circular food product (see “first pump” and “second pump” in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Frea discloses, the apparatus in accordance with claim 2, wherein the at least one pump comprises multiple pumps (see “first pump” and “second pump” in claim 1), the at least one inlet comprises multiple inlets, wherein each pump is in fluid communication with one of the inlets and each inlet is in fluid communication with at least one of the outlets, whereby actuation of one of the pumps conveys fluent food to a respective one of the inlets and out at least one of the outlets (see “the first inlet is in fluid communication with the first pump and a first segment of the outlets […] the second inlet is in fluid communication with the second pump and a second segment of the outlets” claim 1).
Claims 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,700, 859 (hereby “Frea”) in view of Amigh (US 6626996 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter of the present applicant and that of the claims of the patent are substantially the same and the claimed subject matter of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the claimed subject matter of the claims of the patent.
Regarding claim 4, Frea discloses, an apparatus for applying a fluent food to a substantially circular food product (see “An apparatus for applying pizza sauce to a pizza crust” in claim 1), the apparatus comprising:
(a) a manifold (see “a manifold disposed above a tray that is for holding and rotating the crust” in claim 1) having at least one inlet (see “first inlet” in claim 1) in fluid communication with multiple outlets (see “multiple outlets” in claim 1);
(b) a tray (see tray in claim 1) configured for holding the circular food product positioned directly below the outlets (see “a tray that is for holding and rotating the crust” in claim 1);
(c) at least one pump (see “first pump” in claim 1) in fluid communication with the at least one inlet and a reservoir for holding fluent food, wherein the pump is configured to pump fluent food from the reservoir to the at least one inlet and then out of at least one of the outlets to the circular food product below(see “first pump in fluid communication with at least the first inlet and at least one source of pizza sauce for conveying pizza sauce from the at least one source of pizza sauce to at least the first inlet” in claim 1); and
(d) a rotary motor (see “motor” in claim 1) drivingly linked to the tray and configured to rotate the tray, with the circular food product resting thereon, relative to the manifold as the fluent food is dispensed out of the outlets to the circular food product below, wherein the rotation of the tray rotates the circular food product while the fluent food is dispensed onto the circular food product (see “a rotary motor disposed beneath the crust and drivingly linked to the tray for rotating the tray relative to the manifold as the pizza sauce is dispensed out of at least one of the outlets” in claim 1).
However, Frea does not explicitly disclose, the manifold having means for selectively obstructing at least one of the outlets.
Nonetheless, Amigh teaches, solenoids 210 each connected to the hose 208 (see Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the manifold of Frea wherein the manifold further comprises means for selectively obstructing at least one of the outlets as taught/suggested by Amigh in order to selectively control/open/close the fluid/sauce flow so as the desired amount of sauce is dispensed.
Regarding claim 5, Frea in view of Amigh discloses, the apparatus in accordance with claim 4, Frea further discloses wherein the outlets are configured to be selectively actuated to dispense fluent food on the circular food product (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Frea in view of Amigh discloses, the apparatus in accordance with claim 5, Frea further discloses wherein the at least one pump comprises multiple pumps (see “firs pump” and “second pump” in claim 1), the at least one inlet comprises multiple inlets (see “first inlet” and “second inlets” in claim 1), wherein each pump is in fluid communication with one of the inlets and each inlet is in fluid communication with at least one of the outlets, whereby actuation of one of the pumps conveys fluent food to a respective one of the inlets and out at least one of the outlets (see claim 1).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over the embodiment of Fig. 7 of Amigh (US 6626996 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Amigh discloses, an apparatus (see pizza sauce spraying mechanism 90 in Fig. 7) for applying a fluent food (sauce) to a substantially circular food product (see dough/pizza as the same configuration of dough 122 in Fig. 6), the apparatus comprising:
(a) a manifold (see dispensing arm 14 in Fig. 7) having at least one inlet (see hose 94 in Fig. 7) in fluid communication with at least one outlet (see nozzle 96 in Fig. 7), wherein the at least one outlet (96) is positioned directly above a tray (see disc 12 as the same configuration of arm 14 is located above dics 12 in Fig. 1) for holding the circular food product (see dough as the same configuration of dough 122 in Fig. 6);
(b) at least one pump (see pump system 92 in Fig. 7) in fluid communication with the at least one inlet (see Fig. 7) and a reservoir (see reservoir 91 in Fig. 7) for holding fluent food (see Fig. 7), wherein the pump (92) is configured to pump fluent food from the reservoir (see Fig. 7) to the at least one inlet (see Fig. 7) and then out of the at least one outlet (see 96) to the circular food product below (disclosed in Col. 7 lines 10-16 “Having second spraying mechanism 90, in addition to spraying mechanism 15, allows system 10 to instantaneously apply different types of sauces without changing nozzle 16, pump 84 or reservoir 82 of pump system 80. PLC 54 is programmed to selectively activate one or both of pump system 90 and pump system 80 to achieve the desired saucing”); and
(c) a rotary prime mover (see motor as the same configuration of motor 50 in Fig. 2) disposed beneath the tray (see the same configuration in Fig. 2) and drivingly linked to the tray (12) and configured to rotate the circular food product relative to the manifold (see the same configuration in Fig. 2 and disclosed in Col. 4 lines 40-44 “Motor 50 receives commands from controls 18 and PLC 54 to determine the activation, deactivation, acceleration, and deceleration of rotation of disc 12, particularly in relationship to the operation of dispensing arm 14 and spraying mechanism 15”) as the fluent food is dispensed out of the at least one outlet to the circular food product below (see Fig. 7 and the same configuration in Fig. 2 and disclosed in Col. 7 lines 10-16 “Having second spraying mechanism 90, in addition to spraying mechanism 15, allows system 10 to instantaneously apply different types of sauces without changing nozzle 16, pump 84 or reservoir 82 of pump system 80. PLC 54 is programmed to selectively activate one or both of pump system 90 and pump system 80 to achieve the desired saucing”).
Regarding claim 2, Amigh discloses, the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one outlet comprises multiple outlets (see nozzles 16 and 96 in Fig. 7) that are configured to be selectively actuated to dispense fluent food on the circular food product (see Fig. 7 and disclosed in Col. 7 lines 10-16 “Having second spraying mechanism 90, in addition to spraying mechanism 15, allows system 10 to instantaneously apply different types of sauces without changing nozzle 16, pump 84 or reservoir 82 of pump system 80. PLC 54 is programmed to selectively activate one or both of pump system 90 and pump system 80 to achieve the desired saucing”).
Regarding claim 3, Amigh discloses, the apparatus in accordance with claim 2, wherein the at least one pump comprises multiple pumps (see pump systems 80 and 92 in Fig. 7), the at least one inlet comprises multiple inlets (see hoses 17 and 94 in Fig. 7), wherein each pump (80, 92) is in fluid communication with one of the inlets (see Fig. 7) and each inlet is in fluid communication with at least one of the outlets (see Fig. 7), whereby actuation of one of the pumps conveys fluent food to a respective one of the inlets and out at least one of the outlets (see Fig. 7 and disclosed in Col. 7 lines 10-16 “Having second spraying mechanism 90, in addition to spraying mechanism 15, allows system 10 to instantaneously apply different types of sauces without changing nozzle 16, pump 84 or reservoir 82 of pump system 80. PLC 54 is programmed to selectively activate one or both of pump system 90 and pump system 80 to achieve the desired saucing”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over the embodiment of Fig. 9 of Amigh (US 6626996 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Amigh discloses, an apparatus (see pizza sauce dispensing system 200 in Fig. 9) for applying a fluent food (sauce) to a substantially circular food product (see dough/pizza as the same configuration of dough 122 in Fig. 6), the apparatus comprising:
(a) a manifold (see arm 201 in Fig. 9) having at least one inlet (see annotated Fig. 9) in fluid communication with multiple outlets (see nozzles 202, 204, and 206 in Fig. 9), the manifold (201) having means (see solenoid 210 with each of the hoses 208 of each of the nozzles 202, 204 and 206 respectively in Fig. 9) for selectively obstructing at least one of the outlets (see Fig. 9 and disclosed in Col. 7 lines 64-67 and Col. 8 lines 1-4 “Sauce pumping system 215 is in fluid communication with each hose 208 to supply sauce to nozzles 202, 204, and 206. In addition, as previously described for sauce dispensing system 10, controls 18 with PLC 54 coordinate the rotation of disc 12, and activation/deactivation and spray rate of nozzles 202, 204, 206 to achieve the selected amount of sauce deposited at the selected thickness and spacing on the pizza crust”, wherein it is known in the art that solenoid valves 210 are used to control/open/close the fluid flow);
(b) a tray (see disc 12 in Fig. 9) configured for holding the circular food product (dough) positioned directly below the outlets (see Fig. 9);
(c) at least one pump (see pump system 215 in Fig. 9) in fluid communication with the at least one inlet (see Fig. 9) and a reservoir (see reservoir 216 in Fig. 9) for holding fluent food (see Fig. 9), wherein the pump (215) is configured to pump fluent food from the reservoir (see Fig. 9) to the at least one inlet (see annotated Fig. 9) and then out of at least one of the outlets to the circular food product below (see Fig. 9 and disclosed in Col. 7 lines 64-67 and Col. 8 lines 1-4); and
(d) a rotary motor (see motor as the same configuration of motor 50 in Fig. 2) drivingly linked to the tray (see the same manner as Fig. 2) and configured to rotate the tray (12) with the circular food product resting thereon (see the same manner as Fig. 6), relative to the manifold (201) as the fluent food (sauce) is dispensed out of the outlets (202, 204, and 206) to the circular food product below (see Fig. 9 and the same manner as Fig. 6), wherein the rotation of the tray (12) rotates the circular food product (dough/pizza) while the fluent food (sauce) is dispensed onto the circular food product (see Fig. 9 and see the same manner as Fig. 2, Fig. 6 and disclosed in Col. 4 lines 40-44 “Motor 50 receives commands from controls 18 and PLC 54 to determine the activation, deactivation, acceleration, and deceleration of rotation of disc 12, particularly in relationship to the operation of dispensing arm 14 and spraying mechanism 15”).
Regarding claim 5, Amigh discloses, the apparatus in accordance with claim 4, wherein the outlets (202, 204 and 206 in Fig. 9) are configured to be selectively actuated to dispense fluent food on the circular food product (see Fig. 9 and disclosed in Col. 7 lines 64-67 and Col. 8 lines 1-4 “Sauce pumping system 215 is in fluid communication with each hose 208 to supply sauce to nozzles 202, 204, and 206. In addition, as previously described for sauce dispensing system 10, controls 18 with PLC 54 coordinate the rotation of disc 12, and activation/deactivation and spray rate of nozzles 202, 204, 206 to achieve the selected amount of sauce deposited at the selected thickness and spacing on the pizza crust”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Fig. 9 of Amigh in view of the embodiment of Fig. 7 of Amigh.
Regarding claim 6, the embodiment of Fig. 9 of Amigh substantially discloses all the claimed limitations in claim 5, the embodiment of Fig. 9 of Amigh further discloses, the apparatus in accordance with claim 5, wherein the at least one pump (215) comprises multiple pumps (disclosed in Col. 7 lines 61-63 “sauce pumping system 215 with reservoir 216 (similar to pump system 80) or other pumping systems”), and the at least one inlet comprises multiple inlets (see hoses 208 in Fig. 9).
However, the embodiment of Fig. 9 of Amigh does not explicitly disclose, wherein each pump is in fluid communication with one of the inlets, and whereby actuation of one of the pumps conveys fluent food to a respective one of the inlets and out at least one of the outlets.
Nonetheless, the embodiment of Fig. 7 of Amigh teaches, the at least one pump comprises multiple pumps (see pump system 80 and pump system 92 in Fig. 7) wherein each pump (80, 92) is in fluid communication with one of the inlets (see hoses 17 and 94 in Fig. 7, wherein hose 17 is in fluid communication with pump 80, and hose 94 is in fluid communication with pump 92 as seen in Fig. 7) and each inlet (17, 94) is in fluid communication with at least one of the outlets (see 16 and 96 respectively in Fig. 7), whereby actuation of one of the pumps (80 and 92) conveys fluent food to a respective one of the inlets (17/94) and out at least one of the outlets (16/96 respectively in Fig. 7 and disclosed in Col. 7 lines 10-16 “Having second spraying mechanism 90, in addition to spraying mechanism 15, allows system 10 to instantaneously apply different types of sauces without changing nozzle 16, pump 84 or reservoir 82 of pump system 80. PLC 54 is programmed to selectively activate one or both of pump system 90 and pump system 80 to achieve the desired saucing.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the pump system 215 of the embodiment of Fig. 9 so as the pump system 215 further comprises multiple pumps as taught/suggested by the embodiment of Fig. 7 such that each of the hoses 208 comprises one pump, whereby actuation of one of the pumps conveys fluent food to a respective one of the inlets and out at least one of the outlets. Doing so would allow system to selectively activate one or all of pump systems to achieve the desired saucing (see Col. 7 lines 10-16 of the embodiment of Fig. 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 6:00 am-3:30 pm ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761