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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “cutting portion that processes the at least one food item; wherein, characterized in that, the” should read: “cutting portion that processes the at least one food item; wherein
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “helical conical roller shafts that feeds” should read: “helical conical roller shafts that feed[[s]]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “cutting portion” in claim 1.
With regard to the term “cutting portion”, in claims 1-2, 5-6, and 7:
first, the term “portion” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the cutting portion.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 5385074, Burch.
Regarding Claim 1, Burch discloses: An automatic food item feeder and processor system comprising (abstract):
a feeder 10 that receives at least one food item (col. 3, 1-15, “potatoes”);
a pusher 64 that pushes the at least one food item inside the automatic food item feeder and processor system (col. 3, 1-15),
cutting portion (54, 62) that processes the at least one food item (col 3, 20-40);
wherein, characterized in that, the automatic food item feeder and processor system comprise a feeder mechanism (40, 50, 42) comprising helical (as seen in fig. 1) conical roller shafts (shafts 42, having spiral portions thereon, col 2, 55-65) that feeds the at least one food item from the feeder to the cutting portion in a rotary motion (col. 3, 15-20), wherein, when in operation, the helical conical roller shafts are configured to create a feed motion by gripping and pushing the at least one food item to the cutting portion to cut the at least one food item in a pre-determined requirement with a rotary and push force (col. 3, 15-20).
Regarding Claim 2, in Burch the helical conical roller shafts further comprise one or more drive roller shafts 22 and one or more driven roller shafts 34, wherein the one or more drive roller shafts are configured to initiate the rotary motion and the one or more driven roller shafts are configured to drive by the one or more drive roller shafts, that creates the feed motion for the at least one food item (col. 2, 55-67).
Regarding Claim 3, in Burch the one or more drive roller shafts and the one or more driven roller shafts are in a vertical slanting position (fig 1), to create the feed motion in the automatic food item feeder and processor system (col. 2, 55-67).
Regarding Claim 4, in Burch the one or more drive roller shafts and the one or more driven roller shafts automates a feeding operation of the at least one food item by gripping and pushing the at least one food item to the cutting portion (col. 2, 48-67).
Regarding Claim 5, in Burch the helical conical roller shafts further comprise a spring mechanism that enables at least one of a contraction motion or an expansion motion of the one or more drive roller shafts and the one or more driven roller shafts (see claim 4 of Burch).
Regarding Claim 6, in Burch the automatic food item feeder and processor system further comprises a guideway that is configured to confine a size of the at least one food item to enter into the feeder (combination of parts 52 and rods 42, since only potatoes of a certain size can pass through the space defined by the rods 42, and see also claim 1 of Burch).
Regarding Claim 9, in Burch the cutting portion comprises at least one of dicer blades, choppers, or rotary blades 84 to cut the at least one food item (col 3, 5-15, and col 2, 2-20), wherein the automatic food item feeder and processor system enables the cutting portion to any of slice, the at least one food item (col 3, 5-15, and col 2, 2-20).
Regarding Claim 10, Burch discloses: a method for cutting at least one food item in an automatic food item feeder and processor system (abstract), wherein the method comprises:
receiving, using a feeder, the at least one food item (col. 3, 1-15, “potatoes”);
pushing, using a pusher 64, the at least one food item inside the automatic food item feeder and processor system (col. 3, 1-15);
feeding, using helical conical roller shafts (42), the at least one food item from the feeder to a cutting portion in a rotary motion (col 3, 20-40), wherein the helical conical roller shafts creates a feed motion by gripping and pushing the at least one food item to the cutting portion to cut the at least one food item in a pre-determined requirement with a rotary and push force (col 3, 20-40).
Regarding Claim 11, in Burch the method comprises, creating, using one or more drive roller shafts 22 and one or more driven roller shafts 34, the feed motion for the at least one food item, wherein the one or more drive roller shafts are configured to initiate the rotary motion and the one or more driven roller shafts are configured to drive by the one or more drive roller shafts (col. 2, 55-67).
Regarding Claim 12, in Burch the method comprises, automating, using the one or more drive roller shafts and the one or more driven roller shafts, a feeding operation of the at least one food item by gripping and pushing the at least one food item to the cutting portion (col. 2, 55-67).
Regarding Claim 13, in Burch the method comprises, enabling, using the helical conical roller shafts including a spring mechanism, at least one of a contraction motion or an expansion motion of the one or more drive roller shafts and the one or more driven roller shafts (see claim 4 of Burch).
Regarding Claim 14, in Burch the method comprises, confining, using a guideway, a size of the at least one food item to enter into the feeder (combination of parts 52 and rods 42, since only potatoes of a certain size can pass through the space defined by the rods 42, and see also claim 1 of Burch).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in view of USPGPUB 20140110513, Gushwa.
Burch lacks the apparatus/method of use having a collector that receives the cut food items.
Gushwa discloses a food feeding and cutting apparatus in the same field of endeavor as the food feeding and cutting apparatus of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a collector 22a that receives cut food items after the items are cut by the blades 86 thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burch by including a collector that receives the cut food items in order to allow the cut portions to be collected after being cut, and not simply fall on the floor and be contaminated.
Claims 8 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in view of USPGPUB 6062373, Onoguchi.
Burch lacks the apparatus/method of use having a control unit that is configured to perform the feeding operation of the at least one food item to the cutting portion.
Onoguchi discloses a food feeding and cutting apparatus in the same field of endeavor as the food feeding and cutting apparatus of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a control unit 7 that is configured to perform a feeding operation of the at least one food item to the cutting portion par (col.3, 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burch by including a control unit that is configured to perform the feeding operation of the at least one food item to the cutting portion in order to perform the cutting operation thereof in an automated manner, and thus obviating user error common in manual operations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 1445112 20050132855 20060263501 3841946 6062373 5407057, and JP10234347A and JP2007159470A disclose state of the art food processing apparatuses, with rotary feeding portions, and thus each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on 571-270-3818. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724