DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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: “discharge device” in independent claim 1 and “heating device” in independent claim 1.
Regarding the term “discharge device”, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of an opening in the container (Page 4 of applicant’s specification filed 08/17/2023).
Regarding the term “heating device”, 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. Applicant’s drawings and specifications lack sufficient structure for performing the claimed function and thus any device which is capable of heating oil will be interpreted as reading upon the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, and the claims depending from this claim are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “heating device for heating the oil”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “heating device for heating the oil”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. Figure 1a of the applicant’s drawing filed 08/16/2023 shows a heating device 108 which may be construed as a resistor symbol. However, said symbol is a nonstandard version of said symbol. The preponderance of evidence indicates a lack of written description support for the term “heating device for heating oil” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure other than in Figure 1a, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “heating device for heating the oil”. The Office notes that an affidavit may be useful in clarifying the structure and support for the term “heating device”.
Claim 2-6, 8, and 10-22 is rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 9 includes the limitations “heating device for heating the oil” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different devices capable of heating oil. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “heating device for heating the oil”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2-6, 8, and 10-22 is rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In this case, it is unclear whether term “entirely circular” is limiting.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In this case, it is unclear whether term “each” is limiting.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-15, 17-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITANO (US 20190059423 A1) in view of Elsendoorn (US 20170127882 A1) and Smith (US 3635149 A).
Regarding claim 1, KITANO (US 20190059423 A1) teaches a system for treating food products with oil (Figure 4), comprising
- a container for oil which container is provided with a bottom (Figure 3 Paragraph 62, bottom of frying oil tank 1),
- a conveying device for conveying food products to be treated through oil in the container in a conveying direction (Paragraphs 53-55, conveyor 3 supplies noddle string supplying mechanism into the frying oil tank filled with frying oil), the conveying device comprising an endless conveyor belt which is wound around sprockets which are provided at opposite ends of the system to allow the food products to be situated on a carrying run of the conveyor belt (Paragraphs 52-53, conveyance chains 32 are bound between first sprocket 33 and second sprocket 34 driven by a drive motor such as to retainers 31; Paragraph 45, noodle strings are held in the compact retainers and are fried in the oil of the frying oil tank),
- a supply device for supplying oil to the container (Paragraphs 62-65, frying oil circulating mechanism 8 is provided for supplying frying oil from the frying oil circulating mechanism to the frying oil tank 1; Paragraph 72, fresh oil from a fresh oil tank 82 is provided into the frying oil tank 1),
- a discharge device for discharging oil from the container (Paragraph 62, suction port for recovering the frying oil from the frying oil tank into the frying oil circulation mechanism 8),
- a heating device for heating the oil (Paragraph 64, heat exchanger 81 for heating the frying oil),
the supply device (frying oil circulating mechanism 8) comprising
- at least one supply body (ejection port), each supply body comprising
- an elongate collection space for the oil in which the longitudinal direction of the collection space extends transversely to the conveying direction (Figure 4, transversely extending pipes 16a/16b/18a/18b/19a/19b connected to each of the four outlets of each ejection port extends transversely to the conveying direction), and
- at least two supply ducts (Figure 4, each ejection port comprises four outlet) in which each supply duct, on a respective upstream side thereof, adjoins the collection space (Figure 3 Paragraph 96, first ejection port 12 and second ejection port 13 provided in an upstream portion of the frying oil tank wherein each of the ports are connected to the transversely extending pipes 16a/16b and 17a/17b) and, on a respective downstream side thereof (Figure 4, each outlet is connected to their respective oil supply pipe both upstream and downstream; Figure 3 Paragraph 96, third ejection port 14 and fourth ejection port 15 are provided in a downstream portion of the frying oil tank), ends in the bottom of the container via an outlet opening of the respective supply duct (Figure 3, each of the ejection ports including the ones downstream end in a bottom of the frying oil tank 1),
- a pump for supplying oil heated by the heating device to the collection space (Figure 4, pump device 88; Paragraph 64, heat exchanger 81 for heating the frying oil flowing from the strainer through a heat exchanger frying oil; would have been obvious to have the pump device facilitate the flow of oil through the heat exchanger into the frying oil tank 1)1, and
- a metering device for metering the amount of oil which is supplied to the outlet openings (Paragraph 64, valves 89 for controlling a flow rate of the frying oil supplied from the frying oil common supplying pip 83 to each ejection port), and
wherein the size of each passage opening is adjustable (Paragraph 64, supply amount of fresh oil is controlled by a proportional valve 80).
KITANO fails to explicitly teach:
the conveying device comprising an endless conveyor belt which is wound around deflector rollers
wherein the metering device has a passage opening for each supply duct which is provided between the respective supply duct and the collection space, via which passage opening oil can flow from the collection space into the supply ducts
Elsendoorn (US 20170127882 A1) teaches a fryer, wherein:
wherein the metering device has a passage opening for each supply duct which is provided between the respective supply duct and the collection space, via which passage opening oil can flow from the collection space into the supply ducts (Figures 2-6 Paragraphs 48-50, flow control device 34 includes a body 35 with passages 36 wherein slidably mounted on the body is one or more plates which restrict flow through the passages 36 from a closed chamber 37 to the vessel 11; while the plates are not explicitly shown to be between the flow control device and the closed chamber 36, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have chosen to position the plates on at least the side between the closed chamber and the passages based on mere engineering choice, as it is one of the two options available based on the prior art’s disclosure, and as both positions would be capable of facilitating restricting the flow of the passages)
wherein the size of each passage opening is adjustable (Paragraph 49, plates 45 can be moved to restrict flow through the passages 36).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KITANO with Elsendoorn and the metering device comprise an adjustable passage opening between the supply duct and collection space. This would have been done to control the flow rate of the oil and temperature across the vessel (Elsendoorn Paragraph 52).
KITANO modified with Elsendoorn fails to explicitly teach:
the conveying device comprising an endless conveyor belt which is wound around deflector rollers
Smith (US 3635149 A) teaches a continuous frying device, wherein:
the conveying device comprising an endless conveyor belt which is wound around deflector rollers (Column 2 Line 68 – Column 3 Line 35, conveyors which transfer food are wound around rollers or sprockets)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KITANO with Smith and have the conveying device be wound round around deflector rollers. This would have been done as rollers are known in the art to be suitable replacements for sprockets and would have been obvious to use due to obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 2, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the outlet openings are arranged in a row (Figure 4, ejection ports are arranged in a row).
Elsendoorn further teaches:
the outlet openings are arranged in a row (Figure 2 Paragraph 49, plurality of passages 47 are arranged in a row)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 2, wherein
the row extends in the horizontal direction and transversely to the conveying direction (Figure 4, ejection ports extend in a horizontal direction and transversely to the conveying direction).
Elsendoorn further teaches:
the row extends in the horizontal direction and transversely to the conveying direction (Figure 2 Paragraph 49, plurality of passages 47 extend in a horizontal direction and transversely to the conveying direction)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the metering device comprises at least one metering body which has a metering passage for each supply duct (Figure 4 Paragraph 64, valves 89 for controlling a flow rate of the frying oil to each of the respective ejection ports),
Elsendoorn further teaches:
in which a clear part of a metering passage forms a passage opening (Paragraph 49, each of the plates 45 are provided with a plurality of passages 47 which form passages for the oil and act as openings) and in which the at least one metering body is movable between metering positions with respect to the at least one supply duct for adjusting the size of the at least one passage opening as a function of the metering position (Paragraph 49, each of the plates 45 are provided for a plurality of passages 47 that can be moved from a position aligned with the passages to a position wherein they are partly, or not aligned).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 4.
Elsendoorn further teaches:
irrespective of the metering position used, the sizes of the respective passage openings are identical to each other (Figures 4-5, openings for each of the passages are the same, as moving the plate would adjust the opening size for each passage).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having the size of the passages be identical to each other is not a patentably feature.
Regarding claim 10, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 4.
Elsendoorn further teaches:
the metering body is slidable with respect to the at least one supply duct (Paragraph 48, plate 45 is slidably mounted on the body 35 flow control device 34 includes a body 35 with passages 36 that is slidably mounted on the body 35 with one or more plates 35).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 4, wherein:
the outlet openings are arranged in a row (Figure 4, ejection ports are arranged in a row).
Elsendoorn further teaches:
the outlet openings are arranged in a row (Figure 2 Paragraph 49, plurality of passages 47 are arranged in a row) and the metering body is slidable parallel to the row with respect to the at least one supply duct (Paragraph 48, flow control device 34 includes a body 35 with passages 37 that is slidably mounted on the body 35 with one or more plates 35 in a direction parallel to the row)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 10.
Elsendoorn further teaches:
the metering body is strip-shaped (Figures 2-6 Paragraph 48, slidably mountable plate 45 is strip-shaped).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 10.
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the metering body be strip-shaped is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant.
Regarding claim 13, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Elsendoorn further teaches:
the container has a width (Figure 7, vessel 11 has a width) and the length of the collection space is equal to at least 85% of the magnitude of the width of the container (Figure 7, flow control device 34 extends across the entire vessel which is greater than at least 85% of the width of the vessel; Paragraph 46, closed chamber 37 extends across the entire vessel 11 which is greater than at least 85% of the width of the vessel; KITANO Paragraph 62, number of openings and thus length of collection space can also ).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the system comprises two mutually aligned supply bodies (Figure 4 Paragraph 62, at least two ejection ports are each provided both upstream and downstream mutually aligned to face one another).
Regarding claim 15, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 4, wherein
the system comprises two mutually aligned metering bodies (Figure 4 Paragraph 62, at least two ejection ports are each provided both upstream and downstream mutually aligned to face one another).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have duplicated the mutually aligned metering bodies to position them between each ejection port and oil supply pump. This would have been done to control the flow rate of the oil and temperature across the vessel (Elsendoorn Paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 17, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the system comprises at least two supply bodies which, viewed in the conveying direction, are provided at some distance apart (Figure 4 Paragraph 62, at least two ejection ports are each provided both upstream and downstream mutually are provided at some distance apart).
Regarding claim 18, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 17, wherein
the outlet openings associated with at least one, preferably each, of the at least two supply bodies are provided at a distance from opposite ends of the bottom, viewed in the conveying direction (Figure 4 Paragraph 62, at least two ejection ports are each provided both upstream and downstream mutually aligned to face one another).
Regarding claim 19, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the discharge device comprises at least one discharge opening in the bottom of the container and at least one discharge line which is connected to the at least one discharge opening (Figure 4 Paragraphs 62-64, suction port 11 is in a tapered shape having an opening width gradually narrowed in a sucking direction toward a strainer and a heat exchanger frying oil recovering pipe 86 attached to said strainer).
Regarding claim 22, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 21, wherein
a discharge opening is provided upstream of at least one of the outlet openings, viewed in the conveying direction (Figure 4 Paragraph 64, suction port 11 is located upstream of third ejection port 14 and fourth ejection port 15).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITANO (US 20190059423 A1) in view of Elsendoorn (US 20170127882 A1) and Smith (US 3635149 A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of KIJIMOTO (JP 2004105207 A).
Regarding claim 6, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 4.
KITANO as modified fails to teach:
wherein the metering body is rotatable about a rotation axis with respect to the at least one supply duct.
KIJIMOTO (JP 2004105207 A) teaches a fryer, wherein:
wherein the metering body is rotatable about a rotation axis with respect to the at least one supply duct (Figure 10 Paragraphs 74-75, spherical metal valve body 55 rotates with respect to the oil supply pipe).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KITANO with KIJIMOTO and have each metering body comprise a spherical metal valve body rotatable with respect to the supply duct. This would have been done to provide a system of selectively providing oil to the container by means of a rotatable metal body rotatable between an open state, intermediate state, and closed state (KIJIMOTO Figure 10).
Regarding claim 8, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 6.
KIJIMOTO further teaches:
the metering body has at least a partly circular, preferably an entirely circular, cross section (Paragraph 74, metal valve body 55 is spherical)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 6.
The Office further teaches that the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the metering body be at least partially circular is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITANO (US 20190059423 A1) in view of Elsendoorn (US 20170127882 A1) and Smith (US 3635149 A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 20200124064 A1).
Regarding claim 16, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 4.
Elsendoorn further teaches:
the system has a motor for driving the displacement of the at least one metering body between the metering positions (Paragraph 50, each of the plates 45 is provided with a motor that is operable to move their associated plate).
KITANO as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the system has a servomotor for driving the displacement
Kobayashi (US 20200124064 A1) teaches a flow rate regulating valve and fluid control apparatus, wherein:
the system has a servomotor for driving the displacement (Paragraph 29, servo motor is used to close a selectively close a valve; Paragraph 18, fluid control apparatus includes a plurality of lines each having a flow rate regulating valve controlled by said motor)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KITANO with KIJIMOTO and had the motor for driving the displacement be a servomotor. This would have been done for the enhancement of the flow rate controlling function (KIJIMOTO Paragraph 19) and because servomotors are known to be used in the art of valve fluid control.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITANO (US 20190059423 A1) in view of Elsendoorn (US 20170127882 A1) and Smith (US 3635149 A) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Sakakibara (US 4234612 A).
Regarding claim 20, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 19.
KITANO fails to explicitly teach:
the discharge device comprises at least two discharge openings in the bottom of the container, which at least two discharge openings are provided at a distance apart, viewed in the conveying direction.
Sakakibara (US 4234612 A) teaches a continuous frying method, wherein:
the discharge device comprises at least two discharge openings in the bottom of the container, which at least two discharge openings are provided at a distance apart, viewed in the conveying direction (Figures 1-3 Column 2 Lines 21-33, two openings for discharging oil are provided in the bottom wall of the tank wherein the openings are in the conveying direction).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KITANO with Sakakibara and have the discharge device comprise two discharge openings in the bottom of the container wherein the discharge openings are positioned at a distance apart from each other. This would be done to provide additional redundancy for the recirculating oil.
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having two discharge openings in the bottom of the container has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 21, KITANO as modified teaches the system as claimed in claim 20.
Sakakibara further teaches:
the at least two discharge openings in the bottom of the container which are provided at a distance apart, viewed in the conveying direction, are also provided at a distance from opposite ends of the bottom (Figures 1-3 Column 2 Lines 21-33, two openings for discharging oil are provided in the bottom wall of the tank spaced from each other at a distance from opposite ends of the bottom).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 The Office further notes that well known in the art to use a pump to set the pressure of oil within an oil heating and recirculating loop for a fryer as evidenced by Sakakibara (US 4234612 A).
Prosecution Insights