DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the claim dated 03/13/2019, claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every features of the invention specified in the claims. The limitation(s):
“the frame is tapered towards the top surface of the sifter” recited in claim 10; and
" the opening is tapered between the top face and the bottom face" recited in claim 13, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s)1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chua (US 20050028730 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chua discloses
A breading and sifting apparatus (100, see figs.1-2) comprising:
a sifter (190, see figs.1-2) configured to be placed beneath a working surface (110, see figs.1-2);
a frame (See frame in annotated fig.2 below) coupled to the sifter (190, see figs.1-2, the annotated frame is directly/ indirectly coupled to the sifter 190),
PNG
media_image1.png
320
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Chua
wherein the frame (See frame in annotated fig.2 above) orients and places a breading lug (130, see fig.1) into a position (150, see figs.1-2) that is configured to be aligned with an opening (120, see figs.1-2) of the working surface (110, see figs.1-2 and para.0019: “The breading table 100 further comprises a front surface 140 having a front cut-out section 150 adapted to enable insertion of the breading bin 130”); and
the breading lug (130, see fig.1) configured to be disposed through the opening (120, see figs.1-2) and retained by the frame (See frame in annotated fig.2 above) .
Regarding claim 2, Chua further discloses the sifter (190) is configured to be retained relative to the working surface (110) when the breading lug (130) is retained by the frame (See frame in annotated fig.2 above).
Regarding claim 4, Chua further discloses the frame (see frame in annotated fig.2 above) further comprises a perimeter (vertical wall(s) bounding the bin 130), and wherein the perimeter (vertical wall(s) bounding the bin 130) is configured to be placed around a portion of the breading lug (a portion of the bin 130, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, Chua further discloses the frame (see frame in annotated fig.2 above) further comprises a plurality of uprights (vertical wall(s) bounding the bin 130), and wherein the uprights (vertical wall(s) bounding the bin 130) are configured to be placed around a portion of the breading lug (a portion of the bin 130, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Chua further discloses the breading lug (130) further comprises a flange (160, see fig.1) comprising a bottom surface (bottom surface of 160, see fig.1); and
the bottom surface of the flange (bottom surface of 160, see fig.1) of the breading lug (130) is configured to contact a top face of the working surface (top face of 110, see fig.1) when the breading lug (130) is retained by the frame (see figs.1-2 and see frame in annotated fig. 2 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
534
1230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Chua in the rejection of claim 7
Regarding claim 8, Chua further discloses the breading lug (130) further comprises a flange (160, see fig.1) comprising a bottom surface (top surface of 160, see fig.1. See bottom surface of the flange 160 in annotated fig.1 below); and the bottom surface of the flange (top surface of 160, see fig.1) of the breading lug (130) is configured to be spaced apart from a top face of the working surface (top face of 110, see fig.1, due to the thickness of the flange 160, the top surface of 160 (equivalent to the claimed “bottom surface”) is spaced apart from the top face of 110) when the breading lug (130) is retained by the frame (see figs.1-2 and see frame in annotated fig. 2 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
534
1230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Chua in the rejection of claim 8
Regarding claim 9, Chua further discloses the frame (see frame in annotated fig. 2 above) is arranged on a top surface of the sifter (top surface of 190, see fig.2).
Regarding claim 11, Chua further discloses the sifter (190, see figs.1-2) is configured to be aligned with the opening (120, see figs.1-2) in the working surface (110, see figs.1-2) arranged in an overhang section of the working surface (the section of 110 where contains the sifter 190).
Regarding claim 12, Chua further discloses the frame (see frame in annotated fig.2 above) and the breading lug (130) comprise an interference fit (see figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Chua discloses A method of retaining a breading and sifting apparatus (100, see figs.1-2) relative to a working surface (110, see figs.1-2), the steps comprising:
aligning a sifter (combo 190 and annotated frame in fig.2 below) comprising a frame (See frame in annotated fig.2 below) with an opening (120, see figs.1-2) of the working surface (110, see figs.1-2); and
(b) inserting a breading lug (130, see figs.1-2) through the opening (120, see figs.1-2) and into the frame (See frame in annotated fig.2 below) of the sifter (combo 190 and annotated frame in fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
320
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Chua
Regarding claim 18, Chua further discloses locating the sifter (combo 190 and annotated frame in fig.2 above) beneath the working surface (110).
Regarding claim 19, Chua further discloses locating the sifter (combo 190 and annotated frame in fig.2) beneath an overhang section of the working surface (the section of 110, see figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Chua further discloses the breading lug (130, see fig.1) further comprises a flange (160, see fig.1), and wherein step (b) further comprises moving the breading lug (130) through the opening (120) until the flange (160) is flush with the working surface (110, see fig.1, the bottom surface of 160 is flush with the upper surface of 110).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua in view of Sanders (US 20210088269 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Chua further discloses the working surface (110) is a table (See figs.1-2), except the working surface is a refrigerated table.
Sanders discloses a refrigerated device with food pan wells to facilitate preparation of food items, such as a breading table for in-kitchen breading of food items in preparation for frying or grilling, comprising:
the working surface is a refrigerated table (10, see fig.1 and para.0017, is refrigerated by the cooling system 30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the table of Chua to be refrigerated as taught by Sanders. Doing so provides a breading table that can keep food product in the pans adequately cool which prevents mold growth in warm, humid climates, and extends its shelf life significantly. (see para.003 of Sanders).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua in view of Burnett (US 6505547 B1)
Regarding claim 6, Chua discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the sifter is mounted on a plurality of casters.
Burnett discloses a mobile table for batter dipping and breading food products, comprising:
the sifter (112, see fig.1) is mounted on a plurality of casters (26, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the sifter of Chua to be mounted on a plurality of casters as taught by Burnett. Doing so allows the apparatus to be easily repositioned for different tasks or moved aside for cleaning.
Claims 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua in view of Gordon (US3,520,277A)
Regarding claim 10, Chua discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the frame is tapered towards the top surface of the sifter.
Gordon discloses breaders with flour sifters, comprising:
the frame (see frame in annotated fig.2 below) is tapered towards the top surface of the sifter (top surface of 59, see fig.2).
PNG
media_image5.png
411
725
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Gordan
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the frame to be tapered towards the top surface of the sifter as taught by Gordan. Doing so reduces the chance of flour spilling over the sides and ensures that breading remains contained within the sifting area.
Regarding claim 14, Chua further discloses the breading lug (130, see fig.1) comprises an open receptacle (180, see fig.1), except a rectangular open receptacle.
Gordon discloses Breader with flour sifter, comprising:
the breading lug (33, see figs.1-3) comprises a rectangular open receptacle (27, see figs.1-3).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the shape of the open receptacle of Chua to be rectangular, for the purpose of obtaining better draining and more thorough cleaning, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 §IV).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua in view of Harned (US 20140366750 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Chua further discloses the working surface (110) comprises a top face (top face of 100, see figs.1-2) and a bottom face (bottom face of 100, see figs.1-2), except the opening is tapered between the top face and the bottom face.
Harned discloses a Breading sifting table, comprising:
The working surface (combo 24 and 64, see fig.3) comprises a top face (top face of 24, see fig.3) and a bottom face (bottom face of 62, see fig.3);
the opening (combo 25 and 66, see fig.3) is tapered (see fig.3) between the top face (top face of 24, see fig.3) and the bottom face (bottom face of 62, see fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the opening of Chua to be tapered between the top face and the bottom face as taught by Harned. Doing so reduces the chance of flour spilling over the sides and ensures that breading remains contained within the sifting area.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua in view of Reed (US 4458586 A)
Regarding claim 15, Chua discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the frame is coupled to the sifter by one or more mechanical fasteners.
Reed discloses a combination breader, marinator and preparation unit, comprising:
the frame (32, see fig.3) is coupled to the sifter (27, see fig.3) by one or more mechanical fasteners (28, see fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the frame of Chua to be “coupled to the sifter by one or more mechanical fasteners” as taught by Reed. Doing so allows the sifter to be removed easily for daily cleaning.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua in view of Beudin (US 3596765 A)
Regarding claim 16, Chua discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the frame is coupled to the sifter by welding.
Beudin discloses a density separation apparatus, comprising:
the frame (2, see fig.1) is coupled to the sifter (1, see fig.1) by welding (See col.4 lines 12-16: “the apparatus comprises a fixed sifter 1 held on its periphery between two clamps formed by the edges of the members 2 and 3 or welded thereto.”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the frame of Chua to be “coupled to the sifter by welding” as taught by Beudin. Doing so ensures maximum structural rigidity, durability, and a sanitary, seamless finish under high-frequency vibration and heavy usage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 4936246 A discloses an apparatus for separating dough balls from reusable breading having a container for holding breading containing dough balls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761