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 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, 6-15, 17-20, 23-24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savino (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0254409).
Regarding claim 1, Savino discloses an apparatus for on-demand preparation of a portioned edible paste (abstract; figure 1C; [0036]), the apparatus comprising:
a container receptacle (figure 1C, reference #123A and 123B; figure 4A, reference #432) configured to removably receive a removable container containing a first edible composition in the form of an aqueous-based viscous paste (figure 1C, reference #152 and 154);
a reservoir for holding a second edible composition (figure 1H, reference #190 and 191; figure 4A, reference #433; [0107]);
a static mixing assembly configured to mix the first composition with the second composition in order to obtain said edible paste in the form of an emulsion, the static mixing assembly having (figure 4D, reference #145A, 481, 482; 483; [0097])
an inlet arrangement with a first inlet for receiving said first composition (figure 1C, reference #141; figure 2A, reference #15 and 141; figure 4A, reference #451; [0048]; [0092]) and a second inlet for receiving said second composition (figures 1C and 2A, reference #17 and 142; figure 4A, reference #453; [0048]; [0072}; [0092]; [0107]),
an outlet in flow communication with an edible paste dispensing outlet of the apparatus (figure 2A, reference #146; figure 4D, bottom of reference #145A not labeled; [0069]), and
a static mixing arrangement disposed between said first and second inlets and said outlet for mixing the first composition with the second composition while advancing within said static mixing arrangement from the inlet arrangement towards the outlet (figure 4D, reference #145A, 481, 482; 483; [0097]);
a ducting arrangement comprising a first duct configured to link between said removable container and said first inlet (figure 1C, reference #140A1 and 104A2; figure 4A, reference #461; [0092]), and a second duct configured to link between said reservoir and said second inlet (figures 1H and 2A, reference #142; figure 4A, reference #463; [0072]; [0074]; [0092]; [0107]);
one or more propelling modules for propelling (i) the first composition from said removable container through the first duct into the first inlet, and (ii) the second composition from said reservoir through the second duct into the second inlet ([0045]; [0050]; [0107]); and
a control module for activating the one or more propelling modules to propel portioned amounts of the first and second compositions through the static mixing assembly and dispense said portioned edible paste (reference #150; [0092]; [0106]; [0141]).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 1 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed container receptacle and reservoir and directed to a material or article worked upon (e.g. “a container receptacle configured to removably receive a removable container containing a first edible composition in the form of an aqueous-based viscous paste” and “a reservoir for holding a second edible composition, in the form of an oil-based flowable paste”), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The limitation uses the term “configured” which only requires the container receptacle be capable of removably receiving a removable container, and wherefore does not require the structural limitation of a removable containers and its subparts, including its contents.
Regarding claim 2, Savino discloses wherein at least one of said first composition and said second composition is plant-based ([0043]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to the material or article worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 6, Savino discloses a user interface module in communication with the control module to permit selection of one or more of: (i) portion size of the portioned edible paste, (ii) relative amounts of the first and second compositions (figures 1A and 1C, reference #120A and 120B; [0039]; [0055]; [0056]; [0117]).
Regarding claim 7, Savino discloses wherein said one or more propelling modules are peristaltic pumps ([0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Savino discloses wherein the first edible composition is capable to be a legume paste ([0043]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to the material or article worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 9, Savino discloses wherein the legume paste is capable to be a chickpea paste ([0043]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to the material or article worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 10, Savino discloses wherein the second edible composition is capable to be in the form of an oil-based suspension ([0039]; [0043]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to the material or article worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 11, Savino discloses wherein the second edible paste composition is capable to be a sesame paste ([0042]). It is noted that the limitation is directed to the material or article worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 12, as stated above in the rejection to claim 1, the removable container is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations as recited in claim 12 which further limit the removable container are not positive structural limitations that are part of the claim. However, in order to further prosecution Savino discloses wherein said removable container is a pliable container (figure 1F, reference #152; [0051]; [0053]).
Regarding claim 13, Savino as stated above in the rejection to claim 1, the removable container is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations as recited in claim 13 which further limit the removable container are not positive structural limitations that are part of the claim. However, in order to further prosecution Savino discloses wherein said pliable container is a pre-filled disposable container (figure 1F, reference #152; [0051]).
Regarding claim 14, Savino discloses wherein the container receptacle comprises an auxiliary propelling arrangement, configured for externally exerting a squeezing force onto the pliable container to thereby push the first edible composition towards the first duct (figure 1F, reference #25A, 25B, 26 and 27; [0053]).
Regarding claim 15, Savino discloses wherein the auxiliary propelling arrangement comprises one or more rollers (figure 1F, reference #25A and 25B; [0053]).
Regarding claim 17, as stated above in the rejection to claim 1, the removable container is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations as recited in claim 17 which further limit the removable container are not positive structural limitations that are part of the claim. However, in order to further prosecution Savino discloses wherein the pliable container has
a top end configured for coupling to the container receptacle (figure 1E and 1F, top of reference #152, not labeled),
a bottom end defining a confined volume containing said first plant-based edible composition, and (figure 1E and 1F, bottom of reference #152, not labeled),
a fitting at said bottom end for coupling to said first duct (figure 1E, reference #23, 41 and 104A1; [0052]).
Regarding claim 18, as stated above in the rejection to claim 1, the removable container is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations as recited in claim 18 which further limit the removable container are not positive structural limitations that are part of the claim. However, in order to further prosecution Savino discloses wherein the top end has a horizontal edge (figure 1E and 1F, top horizontal wall of reference #152, not labeled), and the bottom end has a slanted edge, downwardly extending from a first edge portion at one side of the container to a second edge portion at a second side of the container (figure 1E and 1F, bottom curved edges of reference #152 curve/slant downward from side to bottom at fitting 41), said fitting being formed in a portion proximal to said second edge portion (figure 1E, reference #41).
Regarding claim 19, Savino discloses wherein said first duct comprises a fitment end, and the fitting of the pliable container is configured to be irreversible ruptured by the fitment end during coupling of the first duct to the pliable container (figure 1E, reference #23, 41 and 140A1; [0052]).
Regarding claim 20, Savino discloses wherein the container receptacle comprises one or more rollers configured for movement along a side of the container from said top end towards the bottom end to thereby exert a squeezing force onto the pliable container for pushing the first composition towards the fitting (figure 1F, reference #25A and 25B; [0053]).
Regarding claim 23, Savino discloses wherein the first duct, the second duct and the static mixing arrangement are disposable (reference #140A1, 140A2, 142, 461,463, 481, 482; 483; [0072]; [0074]; [0092]; [0097]) (it is noted that all structures are capable of being disposable).
Regarding claim 24, Savino discloses wherein the first duct, the second duct and the static mixing arrangement are integral with one another, and form a single replaceable unit (see figures 2A, 4D, inlet ducts above, not labeled, connect/integral to/with reference #145A which includes static mixing arrangement 145A/481/482).
Regarding claim 27, Savino discloses comprising a refrigeration module for refrigerating at least one of the first edible composition, the edible second composition and the edible paste (reference #193; [0054]; [0063]; [0064]; [0104]).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 16, 21 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savino in view of Rubin et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0303117).
Regarding claim 16, while Savino discloses different types of sensors that indicate the remaining content of the first composition in the pliable container ([0108]; [0113]; [0136]), the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein said container receptacle comprises one or more sensors, configured to sense the position of said one or more rollers, such that the position of said one or more rollers provides indication on the remaining content of the first composition in the pliable container.
Rubin et al. teaches another system for distributing and dispensing food (title). The reference teaches wherein said container receptacle comprises one or more sensors, configured to sense the position of said one or more rollers, such that the position of said one or more rollers provides indication on the remaining content of the first composition in the pliable container (figures 22A-22C, reference #45, 295, 2100, 2200 and 2225; [0227]; [0229]; [0230] (extruder 2225 is a roller); [0232] (sensor determines location of extruder/roller 2225 to determine current volume contents in container 2100)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the sensor of Rubin et al. on the container receptacle of Savino. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach systems for distributing and dispensing food. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a sensor on the container receptacle because it communicates data so that an operator may determine when a container is running low, when replacement containers need to be pulled from storage and ordered, and to gauge relative consumption and popularity amongst several dispensers (Rubin et al. [0232]).
Regarding claim 21, Savino discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference is silent as to wherein the container receptacle comprises two or more pins and the pliable container has holes at its top end configured for fitting over said pins.
Rubin et al. teaches another system for distributing and dispensing food (title). The reference teaches wherein the container receptacle comprises two or more pins (figures 25D, 26A, 26E, reference #2230) and the pliable container has holes at its top end configured for fitting over said pins (figures 27A and 27B, reference #2700; [0223]; [0234]; [0248]; [0256]-[0257]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the rods and holes of Rubin et al. on the container receptacle and pliable container of Savino. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach systems for distributing and dispensing food. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a rod on the container receptacle and hole on the pliable container because it allows for easy, consistent insertion, alignment and retention of the container and extrusion of its contents (Rubin et al. [0256]).
Regarding claim 26, while Savino discloses wherein the reservoir is a rigid or semi-rigid tank (figure 1H, reference #190 and 191; figure 4A, reference #433; [0107]), the reference does not explicitly disclose one or more mixing element for continuously mixing the second edible composition.
Rubin et al. teaches another system for distributing and dispensing food (title). The reference teaches wherein the reservoir is a rigid or semi-rigid tank, and comprises one or more mixing element for continuously mixing the second edible composition (figure 1, reference #50; [0106]-[0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the mixing element of Rubin et al. in the reservoir of Savino. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach systems for distributing and dispensing food. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a mixing element because it mixes the contents, thereby decreasing thermal gradients while increasing homogeneity of container contents (Rubin et al. [0118]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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 INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774