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
Based on the amended claims, a new lack of unity is provided below:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-14, drawn to the apparatus.
Group II, claim(s) 15-19, drawn to the method.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an apparatus for supplying food ingredients, the apparatus comprising: a food ingredient lifting part configured to separate and move upward a food ingredient stack from a food ingredient cassette on which food ingredients including a plurality of stacked food ingredients are seated; a food ingredient separation part configured to suck and move upward a single sheet of a food ingredient from the food ingredient stack moved upward by the food ingredient lifting part; and a horizontal movement part configured to transfer forward the single sheet of the food ingredient moved upward by the food ingredient separation part, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Bruneau et al. (FR 2986510) hereinafter Bruneau.
In particular, Bruneau discloses, in Fig. 1,
an apparatus for supplying food ingredients (1, “device”; Bruneau (translation), p. 3, lns. 54-56: “a device 1 for forming a box 2 from at least one magazine 3 with a constant level for storing a stack 4 of blanks … corrugated cardboard, comprising means 6 for advancing the stack as it is unstacked and means 7 for unstacking the cuts by suction,” which the examiner interprets as teaching an apparatus for supplying food ingredients, wherein the corrugated cardboard blanks/cuts are interpreted as corresponding to the claimed food ingredients, a single blank or cutout 28 thereby corresponding to a single sheet of a food ingredient), the apparatus (1) comprising:
a food ingredient lifting part (6, “means for advancing the stack”; Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 4-6: “The means 6 for advancing the stack comprises a lifting plate 8… and a vertically pushing cylinder 24, controlled by a controller 25 allowing a raising of the programmed plateau as and when the removal of the cuts,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a food ingredient lifting part) configured to separate and move upward a food ingredient stack (4, “stack”) from a food ingredient cassette (3, “magazine”) (Bruneau (translation), p. 2, lns. 50-53: “the invention notably starts with the idea of … pushing [the packs of plates] from one block of their pallet to a vertical movement magazine, then treating the cuttings one by one after having advanced them vertically … by means of a lift plate,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the food ingredient cassette is structurally distinct from the source pallet, such that the food ingredient stack is transferred into the cassette and thereafter separated from it by the lifting part moving the stack upward, independent of the cassette) on which food ingredients (“cardboard”) including a plurality of stacked food ingredients are seated (Bruneau (translation), p. 3, lns. 54-55: “at least one magazine 3 with a constant level for storing a stack 4 of blanks… corrugated cardboard,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a food ingredient cassette that maintains a constant level while the stack of food ingredients is seated therein);
a food ingredient separation part (10, “pre-unstacking means”; Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 19-20: “The pre-unstacking means 10 comprise a horizontal robotic arm 30 provided with at least four suction cups 31 for gripping the cutout 28,” the examiner interprets as teaching a food ingredient separation part) configured to suck and move upward a single sheet of a food ingredient (28, “cutout”) from the food ingredient stack moved upward by the food ingredient lifting part (6) (Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 21-24: “Said rod 32 is guided and fixed by a sleeve 33 to an actuating chain 34 between a position 35 … of gripping, a position 36 … above jogging means 37, a position 38 … for removing the cutout on said gripping means 37 for gripping in the plane 9, and a position 39 … of escape in height and lateral allowing the [unstacking] means … to come and take the cut 28,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the separation part sucks the single cutout at the gripping position 35 and moves it upward to a higher position, the cutout having been raised from the food ingredient stack previously moved upward by the food ingredient lifting part); and
a horizontal movement part (7, “unstacking means”; Bruneau (translation), p. 3, lns. 58-60: “The unstacking means 7 comprise a system 11 formed by a partially horizontal arm 12 provided … with … six suction cups … by suction,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a horizontal movement part) configured to transfer forward the single sheet of the food ingredient (28) moved upward by the food ingredient separation part (10) (Bruneau (translation), p. 3, lns. 61-62: “The arm is movable horizontally … between the gripping position of the blanks above the store and the next step,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the horizontal movement part receives the single cutout after it has been moved upward by the separation part to position 39, and transfers the cutout forward toward the next station).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Bruneau, annotated
Claims 15-19 are still withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention based on the updated lack of unity above, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “food ingredient lifter hole,” “first lifting position,” and “second lifting position” recited in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Further, claim 12 recites “the plurality of intake holes is disposed in a zigzag manner in a forward/rearward direction.” No figure shows the intake holes or their arrangement. The specification at ¶ [0059] discloses that “[t]he plurality of intake holes may be alternately disposed in the forward/rearward direction in a zigzag matter in the leftward/rightward direction,” e.g., a zigzag pattern extending in the leftward/rightward direction, the reverse of the arrangement recited in claim 12. Because neither the drawings nor the specification show or describe the intake holes disposed in a zigzag manner in the forward/rearward direction as claimed, this feature recited in claim 12 must be shown or canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
In particular, the abstract is objected to because it refers to the disclosure itself, for example “according to the present disclosure.” Appropriate correction is required.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 12 recites “the plurality of intake holes is disposed in a zigzag manner in a forward/rearward direction.” The specification at ¶ [0059] discloses “[t]he plurality of intake holes may be alternately disposed in the forward/rearward direction in a zigzag manner in the leftward/rightward direction,” describing the individual intake holes as elongated/staggered in the forward/rearward direction, while the zigzag pattern formed by the holes as a group extends in the leftward/rightward direction. The specification does not otherwise describe an embodiment in which the intake holes are disposed in a zigzag manner in the forward/rearward direction, as recited in claim 12. Therefore, the limitation of claim 12 lacks corresponding descriptive support in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 and 4 each recite “the plurality of food ingredients,” which lacks proper antecedent basis consistency with claim 1, which recites “a plurality of stacked food ingredients.” Appropriate correction is required. The examiner interprets the limitation as “the plurality of stacked food ingredients” for the examination purpose.
Claim 13 recites “the plurality of intake holes is formed in the form of a long hole,” which contains a singular/plural mismatch between the plural subject (“the plurality of intake holes”) and the singular predicate noun (“a long hole”). Appropriate correction is required. The examiner interprets the limitation as “the plurality of intake holes is formed in the form of long holes.”
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:
“food ingredient lifting part” in claim 1;
“food ingredient separation part” in claim 1;
“horizontal movement part” in claim 1;
“food ingredient cassette movement part” in claim 5; and
“food ingredient transfer part” in claim 14
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.
Regarding the term “food ingredient lifting part” in claim 1, the recited function is to separate and move upward a good ingredient stack from a food ingredient cassette. The specification describes the corresponding structures as the food ingredient lifter 212 and food ingredient lifting rail 211 and equivalent thereof. ¶¶ [0034]-[0036].
Regarding the term “food ingredient separation part” in claim 1, the recited function is to suck and move upward a single sheet of a food ingredient from the food ingredient stack. The specification describes the corresponding structures as the suction block 221 and passageway member 223 and equivalent thereof. ¶¶ [0041]-[0043].
Regarding the term “horizontal movement part” in claim 1, the recited function is to transfer forward the single sheet of the food ingredient. The specification describes the corresponding structures as the suction conveyor, comprising a horizontal movement body 241, suction belt 242, and suction rollers 243 and equivalent thereof. ¶¶ [0052] and [0055].
Regarding the term “food ingredient cassette movement part” in claim 5, the recited function is to selectively position the food ingredient cassette at a first lifting position and a second lifting position. The specification describes the corresponding structures as the cassette rail 251 and cassette seating part 252 and equivalent thereof. ¶ [0033].
Regarding the term “food ingredient transfer part” in claim 14, the recited function is to receive the single sheet of the food ingredient transferred by the horizontal movement part and transfer the single sheet of the food ingredient. The specification describes the corresponding structures as the food ingredient transfer conveyors 231 and equivalent thereof. ¶ [0059].
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
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruneau et al. (FR 2986510) hereinafter Bruneau.
Regarding claim 1, Bruneau discloses, in Fig. 1,
an apparatus for supplying food ingredients (1, “device”; Bruneau (translation), p. 3, lns. 54-56: “a device 1 for forming a box 2 from at least one magazine 3 with a constant level for storing a stack 4 of blanks … corrugated cardboard, comprising means 6 for advancing the stack as it is unstacked and means 7 for unstacking the cuts by suction,” which the examiner interprets as teaching an apparatus for supplying food ingredients, wherein the corrugated cardboard blanks/cuts are interpreted as corresponding to the claimed food ingredients, a single blank or cutout 28 thereby corresponding to a single sheet of a food ingredient), the apparatus (1) comprising:
a food ingredient lifting part (6, “means for advancing the stack”; Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 4-6: “The means 6 for advancing the stack comprises a lifting plate 8… and a vertically pushing cylinder 24, controlled by a controller 25 allowing a raising of the programmed plateau as and when the removal of the cuts,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a food ingredient lifting part) configured to separate and move upward a food ingredient stack (4, “stack”) from a food ingredient cassette (3, “magazine”) (Bruneau (translation), p. 2, lns. 50-53: “the invention notably starts with the idea of … pushing [the packs of plates] from one block of their pallet to a vertical movement magazine, then treating the cuttings one by one after having advanced them vertically … by means of a lift plate,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the food ingredient cassette is structurally distinct from the source pallet, such that the food ingredient stack is transferred into the cassette and thereafter separated from it by the lifting part moving the stack upward, independent of the cassette) on which food ingredients (“cardboard”) including a plurality of stacked food ingredients are seated (Bruneau (translation), p. 3, lns. 54-55: “at least one magazine 3 with a constant level for storing a stack 4 of blanks… corrugated cardboard,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a food ingredient cassette that maintains a constant level while the stack of food ingredients is seated therein);
a food ingredient separation part (10, “pre-unstacking means”; Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 19-20: “The pre-unstacking means 10 comprise a horizontal robotic arm 30 provided with at least four suction cups 31 for gripping the cutout 28,” the examiner interprets as teaching a food ingredient separation part) configured to suck and move upward a single sheet of a food ingredient (28, “cutout”) from the food ingredient stack moved upward by the food ingredient lifting part (6) (Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 21-24: “Said rod 32 is guided and fixed by a sleeve 33 to an actuating chain 34 between a position 35 … of gripping, a position 36 … above jogging means 37, a position 38 … for removing the cutout on said gripping means 37 for gripping in the plane 9, and a position 39 … of escape in height and lateral allowing the [unstacking] means … to come and take the cut 28,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the separation part sucks the single cutout at the gripping position 35 and moves it upward to a higher position, the cutout having been raised from the food ingredient stack previously moved upward by the food ingredient lifting part); and
a horizontal movement part (7, “unstacking means”; Bruneau (translation), p. 3, lns. 58-60: “The unstacking means 7 comprise a system 11 formed by a partially horizontal arm 12 provided … with … six suction cups … by suction,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a horizontal movement part) configured to transfer forward the single sheet of the food ingredient (28) moved upward by the food ingredient separation part (10) (Bruneau (translation), p. 3, lns. 61-62: “The arm is movable horizontally … between the gripping position of the blanks above the store and the next step,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the horizontal movement part receives the single cutout after it has been moved upward by the separation part to position 39, and transfers the cutout forward toward the next station).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Bruneau, annotated
Regarding claim 2, Bruneau discloses, in Fig. 1, the apparatus (1) of claim 1, wherein the food ingredient lifting part (6) comprises a food ingredient lifter (8, “lifting plate”; Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 4-5: “The means 6 for advancing the stack comprises a lifting plate 8 … formed by two angles 23 for horizontal support of the last cut of the bottom of the stack 4,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a food ingredient lifter) configured to move the food ingredient stack (4) upward by moving upward from a location below the food ingredient stack (4) (Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 4-6: “two angles 23 for horizontal support of the last cut of the bottom of the stack 4, and a vertically pushing cylinder 24… allowing a raising of the programmed plateau as and when the removal of the cuts,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the food ingredient lifter is positioned to support the bottom of the stack from below and moves upward to raise the stack).
Regarding claim 3, Bruneau discloses, in Fig. 1, the apparatus (1) of claim 2, wherein the food ingredient lifting part (6) further comprises a food ingredient holder (Fig. 6: 48, “free tabs”; Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 33-36: “the holding means 47 can be automatically triggered at the top of the stack. These means are for example constituted by free tabs 48 pivoting between a sliding position 49 … along the edge 50 of the cutting stack and a position 51… [of support of the] bottom of the pile under the effect of gravity,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a food ingredient holder) configured to support at least some of the plurality of food ingredients (4) included in the food ingredient stack moved upward by the food ingredient lifter (8) (Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 32-34: “the plate [8] formed by the brackets 23, which supports the last blank 46, rises”; p. 4, lns. 41-42: “It is then arranged to be placed in a position 57 horizontal abutment on which the last cut 46 can come to rest releasing the plate formed by the angles 23”; the examiner interprets Bruneau as teaching that the holder supports at least some of the food ingredients in the stack 4 previously moved upward by the lifter, thereby allowing the lifter to be lowered while the holder maintains support of the remaining stack).
Regarding claim 4, Bruneau discloses, in Fig. 1, the apparatus (1) of claim 3, wherein the food ingredient lifter (8, “lifting plate”) has a shape extending in a leftward/rightward direction (annotated Fig. 1 shows the lifting plate has a shape extending in a leftward/rightward direction), and
wherein the food ingredient holder (48, “free tab”) moves in a forward/rearward direction to support at least some of the plurality of food ingredients (4) or separates from the plurality of food ingredients so that the plurality of food ingredients (4) is seated on the food ingredient lifter (8) (Bruneau (translation), p. 4, lns. 37-46: “the holding means 47 comprise the tabs 48 formed by a free piece and / or idling in rotation relative to an axis 52 … The cleats have an end lug 55 arranged to slide along the edge of the stack … When the tip of the lug 55 is no longer in contact with the edge of the stack, because it is too high, said edge is no longer retained and the cleat pivots about its axis 52 by gravity. It is then arranged to be placed in a position57 horizontal abutment on which the last cut 46 can come to rest releasing the plate formed by the angles 23 … It is then sufficient to raise the stack until it comes into contact with the lugs 55, which will then pivot until the last cut of the remainder of the top stack comes into contact with the first cut of the bottom stack,” which the examiner interprets, as shown in Figs. 2 & 6, as teaching that the holder/free tab 48 moves in a forward/rearward direction via a pivoting arc about axis 52 to support the stack in the horizontal abutment position 57, or to separate from the stack as the lugs 55 disengage from the stack’s edge, so that the stack is seated on the lifter/angles 23 once the holder disengages).
PNG
media_image2.png
617
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2 & 6 of Bruneau, annotated
Regarding claim 7, Bruneau discloses, in Fig. 1, the apparatus (1) of claim 1, wherein the horizontal movement part (7, “unstacking means”) is a suction conveyor (Bruneau (translation), p. 3, lns. 58-60: “The unstacking means 7 comprise a system 11 formed by a partially horizontal arm 12 provided … with … six suction cups … by suction,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a suction conveyor)
disposed so that a lower surface thereof (7) comes into contact with an upper surface of the single sheet of the food ingredient (28) moved upward by the food ingredient separation part (10) (Bruneau, (translation), p. 4, lns. 23-24: “a position 39 … of escape in height and lateral allowing the [unstacking] means … to come and take the cut 28,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the lower surface of the suction cups of the horizontal movement part 7 comes into contact with the upper surface of the single sheet after the sheet has been moved upward by the separation part 10 to position 39), and
wherein the horizontal movement part (7) is configured to transfer forward the single sheet of the food ingredient (28) that is in contact with the horizontal movement part (7) (Bruneau, (translation), p. 3, lns. 61-62: “The arm is movable horizontally … between the gripping position of the blanks above the store and the next step,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the horizontal movement part transfers forward the single sheet while it remains in contact with the horizontal movement part).
Regarding claim 8, Bruneau discloses, in Fig. 1, the apparatus (1) of claim 7, wherein a partial region of the upper surface of the single sheet of the food ingredient (28), which is in contact with the horizontal movement part (7), has a length of 1/3 or more of a length of the single sheet of the food ingredient (28) in a forward/rearward direction (annotated Fig. 2 shows the unstacking means 7 has a length greater than the length of the cutout 28 in the forward/rearward direction, such that the region of contact between the horizontal movement part 7 and the upper surface of the cutout 28 necessarily spans a length of 1/3 or more of the cutout’s forward/rearward length).
Regarding claim 9, Bruneau teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 7, wherein a length (annotated Fig. 5: L1 & L2) of the horizontal movement part (7, “unstacking means”; Bruneau (translation), p. , lns. : “The unstacking means 7 comprise a system 11 formed by a partially horizontal arm 12 [as shown in Fig. 1] provided for example in three parallel branches of compressed air supply and positioning of six suction cups (two per branch) 13 by suction”) in the forward/rearward direction decreases upward when viewed in a leftward/rightward direction (annotated Fig. 5 shows the relationship between L1 and L2 (L1 < L2) satisfying the claimed limitation).
PNG
media_image3.png
452
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Bruneau, annotated
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau et al. (FR 2986510) hereinafter Bruneau, in view of Terai (US 5207311), and further in view of Germunson (US 20120047851).
Regarding claim 5, Bruneau teaches, in Fig. 1, the apparatus (1) of claim 2, further comprising: the food ingredient cassette (3, “magazine”), and the food ingredient lifter (8, “lifting plate”), but does not explicitly teach a food ingredient cassette movement part configured to selectively position the food ingredient cassette at a first lifting position at which the food ingredient lifter may penetrate, in an upward/downward direction, a food ingredient lifter hole formed in the food ingredient cassette and opened in the upward/downward direction and a second lifting position positioned rearward of the first lifting position.
However, Terai teaches, in Fig. 6, an apparatus (20, “article transfer means”) comprising: a food ingredient cassette movement part (22, “slide conveyor”; col. 3, ln. 56-col. 4, ln. 2: “slide conveyor comprising a slider body horizontally movabl[e] … back-and-forth movement of the slider body between a retreated position … and an advanced position”) configured to selectively position the food ingredient cassette (61, “holding bars”) at a first lifting position (“advanced position”) and a second lifting position (“retreated position”) positioned rearward of the first lifting position (“advanced position”) (Fig. 13 teaches the slide conveyor 22 is moved back and forth between an advance position where the holding bars 61 on the slide conveyor 22 are shown by chain line and a retreated position where the holding bars 61 are shown by solid line. As the arrow in Fig. 13 indicates the processing/forward direction, the retreated position is located rearward of the advanced position. See col. 11, lns. 21-42).
Bruneau and Terai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated food article handling and transfer apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bruneau’s food ingredient cassette (3) to include a movement part configured to selectively position the cassette between two positions via a horizontal shuttle mechanism, as taught by Terai’s slide conveyor 22, in order to transfer the cassette between positions “without being clamped from lateral sides” (Terai, col. 15, ln. 60), thereby avoiding deformation or damage to the loaded articles during transfer.
PNG
media_image4.png
402
665
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Terai
PNG
media_image5.png
414
802
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 13 of Terai
Regarding claim 5, Bruneau in view of Terai does not explicitly teach a first lifting position at which the food ingredient lifter may penetrate, in an upward/downward direction, a food ingredient lifter hole formed in the food ingredient cassette and opened in the upward/downward direction.
However, Germunson teaches, in Fig. 11, a system to load trays (abstract), wherein a first lifting position (Fig. 4 shows a position where the tray lift assembly 250 is disposed, which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the first lifting position) at which the food ingredient lifter (Fig. 10: 252, “lift rods”) may penetrate, in an upward/downward direction (¶ [0033]: “the lift rods 252 … rise up through the holes 246 in the bottom portion 240 of the container 114”), a food ingredient lifter hole (246, “hole”) formed in the food ingredient cassette (240, “bottom portion”; ¶ [0034]: “bottom portion 240 of the container 114”) and opened in the upward/downward direction (Fig. 11 shows the holes are open in the vertical direction).
Bruneau, Terai and Germunson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated apparatus for handling and loading food articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the food ingredient cassette taught by Bruneau and Terai to include a lifter hole positioned to permit penetration by the lifter, as taught by Germunson, in order to allow the lifter to “rise up through the holes … in the bottom portion 240 of the container 114” (Germunson, ¶ [0033]) and support the loaded article from beneath, thereby avoiding damage that would otherwise occur if the article were simply dropped into the cassette (Germunson, ¶ [0005]: “to produce damage if the tray is dropped while being manually inserting into the shipping container”).
PNG
media_image6.png
556
536
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Germunson
PNG
media_image7.png
470
674
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 of Germunson
PNG
media_image8.png
730
667
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11 of Germunson
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau et al. (FR 2986510) hereinafter Bruneau, in view of Qi et al. (CN 211322928) hereinafter Qi.
Regarding claim 6, Bruneau teaches, in Figs. 2 & 3, the apparatus (1) of claim 1, wherein the food ingredient separation part (10, “pre-unstacking means”) comprises:
a suction block (31, “suction cups”) configured to approach the single sheet of the food ingredient (28, “cutout”), suck an upper surface (Fig. 3) of the single sheet of the food ingredient (28), and move upward or downward (the movement from positions 35 to 36 is shown in Figs. 2 & 3).
Bruneau does not explicitly teach
a passageway member configured to provide negative pressure, which is used by the suction block to suck the single sheet of the food ingredient, to the suction block when the passageway member communicates with the suction block, and
wherein a hole through which the suction block and the passageway member communicate with each other is closed as the suction block moves upward, and the hole is opened as the suction block moves downward.
However, Qi teaches, in Fig. 13, a laver sheet separation device (Qi (translation), p. 3, ln. 37) wherein
a passageway member (13, “fixed plate”) configured to provide negative pressure, which is used by the suction block (Fig. 5: 11, “lifting air head body”) to suck the single sheet of the food ingredient (Qi (translation), p. 3, ln. 34: “laver sheet”), to the suction block (11) when the passageway member (13) communicates with the suction block (11) (Qi (translation), p. 10, lns. 15-17: “a fixed plate 13 is provided with a sliding seal end surface abutting against a lifting seat 12, and the sliding seal end surface is provided with a first upper air suction hole 14 and a first lower air exhaust hole 15 which are arranged in parallel up and down,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a passageway member 13 configured to provide negative pressure to the suction block 11 via the sliding seal end surface abutting the lifting seat 12), and
wherein a hole through which the suction block (11) and the passageway member (13) communicate with each other (Qi (translation), p. 10, lns. 15-17) is closed as the suction block moves upward, and the hole is opened as the suction block moves downward (Qi (translation), p. 10, lns. 17-18: “the first female air suction hole is respectively in alternate butt joint with the first upper air suction hole 14 and the first lower air exhaust hole 15 in the up-and-down lifting process to realize air suction and air exhaust of the lifting air head body 11,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the hole through which the suction block and passageway member communicate is opened and closed in an alternating manner as the suction block moves upward and downward, consistent with the claimed relationship).
Bruneau and Qi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an apparatus for processing food ingredients/laver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the separation part of Bruneau to incorporate the passageway member and position-actuated hole structure taught by Qi, because Qi discloses that the structural arrangement serves “to realize air suction and air exhaust of the lifting air head body.” Qi (translation), p. 10, ln. 18. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that trying the suction block’s negative-pressure supply directly to its own vertical travel position, via the alternating butt-joint mechanism taught by Qi, provides a simpler and more reliably synchronized means of controlling suction at the suction block than a separately-timed control scheme, since the mechanical alternation between the upper and lower holes inherently coordinates the suction state with the suction block’s physical position without requiring independent timing control. Applying this known technique to the suction block of Bruneau would have yielded predictable results, namely, a suction block whose negative pressure supply is mechanically and reliably synchronized with its own vertical travel.
PNG
media_image9.png
401
349
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Bruneau
PNG
media_image10.png
307
426
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Qi
PNG
media_image11.png
465
587
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 13 of Qi
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau et al. (FR 2986510) hereinafter Bruneau, in view of Wang (CN 101703278).
Regarding claim 10, Bruneau teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 7 comprising the horizontal movement part (7), but does not explicitly teach
the horizontal movement part comprises:
a horizontal movement body configured to receive negative pressure and having a plurality of body holes;
a suction belt having a plurality of intake holes that communicates with the plurality of body holes to generate suction power, the suction belt being wound around the horizontal movement body; and
a suction roller configured to rotate to rotate the suction belt along a periphery of the horizontal movement body.
However, Wang teaches, in Figs. 4a-4c, an apparatus (“laver processing unit”; Wang (translation), p. 5, ln. 42: “the invention provides a kind of boxlike stripping dish device that is used for laver time processing unit), wherein a horizontal movement part (“conveying mechanism”; Wang (translation), p. 21, lns. 7-9: “conveying mechanism (3,3 ', 28), it comprises cylinder (3,3 '), conveyer belt (28) and be used to conveyer belt that the driver part … of power is provided… cylinder (3,3 ') is installed on the end of … air draught box parts (2), … conveyer belt (28) closed loop is coated on … cylinder (3,3 ') and … air draught box parts,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a horizontal movement part) comprises:
a horizontal movement body (2, “air draught box parts”) configured to receive negative pressure and having a plurality of body holes (411, “through holes”) (Wang (translation), p. 11, lns. 30-32: “Air draught box parts 2, it is installed on the left and right side plate with the negative pressure source fluid communication … and air draught box parts 2 also are provided with air vent group 41, and air vent group 41 is made up of a plurality of through holes 411,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a horizontal movement body configured to receive negative pressure and having a plurality of body holes);
a suction belt (28, “conveyer belt”) having a plurality of intake holes (29, “eyelets”) that communicates with the plurality of body holes (411) to generate suction power, the suction belt (28) being wound around the horizontal movement body (2) (Wang (translation): “Air draught box parts 2 and cylinder 3,3 ' are outward coating closed loop conveyer belt 28, the evenly distributed eyelet 29 … on the conveyer belt 28 can make by these eyelets 29 in the through hole 411 of air vent group 41 of air draught box parts 2 to be interlinked to the outside under conveyer belt 28 rotates the state of (moving),” which the examiner interprets as teaching a suction belt having intake holes that communicate with the body holes to generate suction power, wound around the horizontal movement body); and
a suction roller (3, 3’, “cylinder”) configured to rotate to rotate the suction belt (28) along a periphery of the horizontal movement body (2) (Wang (translation), p. 11, lns. 37-38: “cylinder 3,3 ' drive conveyer belt to move around air draught box parts 2 under the power drive of driver part,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed limitation).
Bruneau and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of apparatuses handling sheet-type products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the horizontal movement part of Bruneau to incorporate the horizontal movement body, suction belt, and suction roller structure as taught by Wang, because Wang teaches that this structural arrangement enables the negative pressure air power distributed through the body’s holes and the belt’s aligned holes to reliably adsorb and convey the sheet material once it is separated (Wang (translation), p. 14, lns. 24-26: “the wind-force distributor by machine set system produced negative pressure in air draught box inside, again by the air vent group 41 on the lid 40, eyelet 29 on the conveyer belt 28 directly acts on the lower surface of dish sheet 37, dish sheet 37 tightly is adsorbed on (conveyer belt 28 of this moment is static) on the conveyer belt 28”). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that substituting Wang’s continuous suction belt and body architecture for Bruneau’s discrete suction cup arm would provide a simpler, more continuous means of maintaining suction contact with the sheet during forward conveyance. Applying this known technique to the horizontal movement part of Bruneau would have yielded predictable results, namely, a horizontal movement part capable of continuous suction-based conveyance via a body and belt architecture.
PNG
media_image12.png
285
558
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figs. 41-4c of Wang
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau et al. (FR 2986510) hereinafter Bruneau, in view of Wang (CN 101703278), and further in view of Ehrola (US 20030051849).
Regarding claim 11, Bruneau in view of Wang teaches the apparatus (Bruneau: 1) of claim 10, comprising the horizontal movement body (Wang: 2, “air draught box parts”), but does not explicitly teach wherein an internal space of the horizontal movement body is divided into a negative pressure space and a non-negative pressure space, and wherein the negative pressure space receives negative pressure and communicates with the outside through the plurality of body holes.
However, Ehrola teaches, in Fig. 1, a suction roll of a paper machine (¶ [0003]: “a suction roll of a paper machine comprising a perforated shell and a static suction box sealed against the inner surface of the shell to create a suction zone on the surface of the suction roll while the shell rotates”), wherein:
an internal space is divided into a negative pressure space (11a, “suction zone”) and a non-negative pressure space (¶ [0013]: “A static suction box 11 is placed inside the shell 10 … The suction box 11 is sealed against the inner surface of the shell 10 by means of sealing strips 12 and 13, whereby a suction zone 11a acting in the area remaining between the seals 12, 13 is formed in the surface of the roll,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the internal space is divided into a negative pressure space (sealed suction zone 11a) and a non-negative pressure space (the remaining internal area outside the sealed zone, not connected to the suction box)), and
wherein the negative pressure space (11a) receives negative pressure and communicates with the outside through the plurality of body holes (14, “holes”) (¶ [0004]: “a local vacuum of desired magnitude and, as a result of it, a flow of water or air into the suction roll are produced in that sector of the shell which is at the suction box each time when the roll is rotating”; ¶ [0013]: “In the area of the suction zone 11a, a vacuum produced by the suction box 11 prevails in the holes 14”; the examiner interprets Ehrola as teaching that the negative pressure space 11a receives negative pressure and communicates with the outside through plurality of body holes 14).
Bruneau, Wang and Ehrola are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of apparatuses employing perforated bodies or shells with internal negative-pressure zones to convey or hold sheet or web materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the horizontal movement body of Bruneau and Wang to incorporate an internal division into a negative pressure space and a non-negative pressure space as taught by Ehrola, because Ehrola teaches that such an arrangement, using a sealed suction zone connected to a vacuum source while the remainder of the internal space remains unconnected to the vacuum source, was already a standard, well-known architecture for suction rolls “used particularly in the forming section and the press section of paper and board machines at locations where a high local vacuum is needed.” Ehrola, ¶ [0004]. Although Ehrola’s suction zone is formed by a rotating perforated shell about a stationary internal suction box, whereas the horizontal movement body of Wang is a stationary body about which a belt rotates, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the underlying principle taught by Ehrola, namely sealing off a designated portion of an internal space from a vacuum source to create a localized negative pressure zone, while leaving the remainder of the internal space at ambient, non-negative pressure, is a technique for achieving localized suction that is not limited to rotating shell architectures, and would have applied this known technique to device the internal space of the horizontal movement body of Wang into a negative pressure space, communicating with the body holes 411 of Wang, and a non-negative pressure space, in order to achieve localized suction control with predictable results.
PNG
media_image13.png
271
278
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Ehrola
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau et al. (FR 2986510) hereinafter Bruneau, in view of Wang (CN 101703278), and further in view of Kunster et al. (DE 102018111860) hereinafter Kunster.
Regarding claim 12, Bruneau in view of Wang teaches the apparatus (Bruneau: 1) of claim 10, comprising the suction belt (Wang: 28, “conveyer belt”) having a plurality of intake holes (Wang: 29, “eyelets”), but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of intake holes is disposed in a zigzag manner in a forward/rearward direction when viewed from below to above.
However, Kunster teaches, in Fig. 3, a suction belt (8, “suction belt”),
wherein the plurality of intake holes (6, “suction holes”) is disposed in a zigzag manner in a forward/rearward direction (4, “arrow”; Kunster (translation), p. 3, ln. 26: “the arrow 4 indicated transport direction”) when viewed from below to above (the arrangement of the holes on the suction belt 8 is shown in Fig. 3 teaching the claimed limitation).
Bruneau, Wang and Kunster are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of apparatuses employing perforated suction belts or surfaces to convey sheet-like products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intake holes 29 of the suction belt 28 of Bruneau and Wang to be arranged in a zigzag manner in the forward/rearward direction, as taught by Kunster, because Kunster expressly discloses the serpentine hole arrangement as known and enabled alternative to a rectilinear hole arrangement within a suction belt’s hole track. Kunster (translation), p. 1, lns. 19-29. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Kunster’s known serpentine hole arrangement technique to the intake holes of the suction belt of Bruneau and Wang would have yielded predictable results, namely, a suction belt with intake holes arranged in a zigzag manner along the belt’s forward/rearward direction of travel, in order to allow “a controlled and reliable transport”. Kunster (translation), p. 1, ln. 21.
PNG
media_image14.png
369
512
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Kunster
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau et al. (FR 2986510) hereinafter Bruneau, in view of Wang (CN 101703278), and further in view of Qi et al. (CN 211322928) hereinafter Qi.
Regarding claim 13, Bruneau in view of Wang teaches the apparatus (Bruneau: 1) of claim 10, comprising the suction belt (Wang: 28, “conveyer belt”) having a plurality of intake holes (Wang: 29, “eyelets”), but does not explicitly teach
wherein the plurality of intake holes is formed in the form of a long hole extending in a forward/rearward direction when viewed from below to above.
However, Qi teaches, in Fig. 6, a laver sheet separation device (Qi (translation), p. 3, ln. 37) wherein a suction block (Fig. 5: 11, “lifting air head body”) comprises a first absorption surface (1101, “first adsorption surface”) having a plurality of intake holes (1103, “first adsorption holes”) formed in the form of a long hole extending in a forward/rearward direction when viewed from below to above (the configuration is shown in Fig. 6).
Bruneau, Wang and Qi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of apparatuses employing perforated or apertured suction surfaces to adsorb sheet materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intake holes 29 of the suction belt 28 of Bruneau and Wang to be formed in the shape of a long hole extending in a forward/rearward direction, as taught by Qi, because Qi discloses that a strip-shaped/elongated hole configuration serves “to concentrate the negative pressure suction and reliably adsorb” the sheet material. Qi (translation), p. 12, lns. 14-15. Although Qi’s strip-shaped holes are disclosed in connection with a separation part rather than a horizontal movement part, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the underlying advantage taught by Qi – that elongating a suction hole concentrates negative pressure and improves reliable adsorption of sheet material – is a general principle of suction hole design applicable to any suction surface intended to adsorb a sheet of food ingredient, and would have applied this known hole geometry to the intake holes of the suction belt of Bruneau and Wang in order to achieve more concentrated and reliable suction contact with the food ingredient during forward conveyance, with predictable results.
PNG
media_image15.png
361
465
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Qi
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau et al. (FR 2986510) hereinafter Bruneau, in view of Koizumi et al. (JP 2004149313) hereinafter Koizumi.
Regarding claim 14, Bruneau teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising: a food ingredient transfer part configured to receive the single sheet of the food ingredient transferred by the horizontal movement part and transfer the single sheet of the food ingredient.
However, Koizumi teaches, in Fig. 1, a printing plate automatic exposure apparatus (10) comprising a single wafer transport unit (14) (Koizumi (translation), ¶ [0026]: “A sheet transport unit 14 serving as a transport device is provided at a rear portion of the printing plate automatic exposure apparatus 10”), wherein:
a food ingredient transfer part (42, “conveyance rollers”) configured to receive the single sheet of the food ingredient (12, “printing plate”) transferred by the horizontal movement part (36, “suction pad”; Koizumi (translation), abstract: “a suction pad 36 sucks a printing plate 12 … for movement, … the suction pad 36 can travel in the horizontal direction,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the horizontal movement part) and transfer the single sheet of the food ingredient (12) (Koizumi (translation), ¶ [0045]: “the slip sheet 20 and the printing plate 12 transported by the movement of the plurality of suction pads 36 are transferred between the pair of transport rollers 42 and drive the suction mechanism. Is stopped and the suction to the suction pad 36 is released, so that it is transported substantially forward along the guide plate 44 by the driving force (rotational force) of the pair of transport rollers 42,” the examiner interprets as teaching that the transfer part 42 receives the single sheet 12 from the horizontal movement part 36 and transfers the single sheet forward).
Bruneau and Koizumi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of apparatuses handling sheet-type products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Bruneau to further include a food ingredient transfer part, as taught by Koizumi, positioned to receive the single sheet from the horizontal movement part of Bruneau and transfer the sheet further onward. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing a distinct downstream receiving and transfer mechanism, such as a pair of rollers and a guide plate, was a well-known and generic feature in sheet-handling equipment for reliably conveying a singulated sheet away from the primary pick and place or suction transfer stage toward a subsequent processing station, and would have applied this known technique to the apparatus to achieve reliable onward transfer of the food ingredient with predictable results.
PNG
media_image16.png
340
562
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Koizumi
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sakata (US 20200234987), Hamashel et al. (CN 103945997), Milde (DE 102012104624), Saison et al. (US 20130108408).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights