Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-9 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maupin (US 2007/0241046) in view of Wardwell (US 5,948,271).
Regarding claim 1, Maupin teaches a food processing system (10; Fig. 1; para. 0024) comprising: a processing compartment (30 comprising 22 and 18), including a rotating component (22) having a first end (50) and a second end (46); a first trunnion (one of rollers 54 that supports end 50) including a first component (roller) for rotational movement (para. 0026; as shown in Fig. 1) and a second trunnion (another roller 54 different from the first trunnion that supports end 50) including a second component (roller) for rotational movement (para. 0026; as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the first and second trunnions are disposed to support the first end (para. 0026; as shown in Fig. 1).
Maupin fails to disclose a first sensor disposed to sense a first rotational speed of the first component for rotational movement; and an alarm responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the first sensor.
Wardwell teaches a first sensor (34) disposed to sense a first rotational speed of the first component for rotational movement (Col. 3, lines 26-29; Col. 6, lines 60-67; Col. 7, lines 1-11; Col. 17, lines 14-21); and an alarm responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the first sensor (operational parameters (including rotational speed) are monitored by sensors, and operating data is retrieved showing operational alarms generated/message displays for operating assistance; Col. 18, lines 6-47).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Maupin, with Wardwell, by providing a first sensor disposed to sense a first rotational speed of the first component for rotational movement, and an alarm responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the first sensor, to assure proper operation of the apparatus. POSITA would have known that providing a rotational speed sensor and an alarm responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the rotational speed sensor would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as assuring the proper operation of the apparatus and notify the user for maintenance or troubleshooting (Col. 18, lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 2, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, further comprising a second sensor disposed to sense a second rotational speed of the second component for rotational movement, wherein the alarm is further responsive to the second sensor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second sensor disposed to sense a second rotational speed of the second component, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the food processing system of claim 1, further comprising an alarm module including an intended rotational speed of the first one of the first and second trunnions, and wherein the alarm is part of the alarm module, and further wherein the alarm is responsive to a function of the intended rotational speed and to the first sensor (Wardwell; Col. 18, lines 53-67; Col. 19, lines 1-47).
Regarding claim 4, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the food processing system of claim 3, wherein the alarm includes a visual indicator (Wardwell; message displays; Col. 18, lines 6-47).
Regarding claim 5, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the food processing system of claim 3, wherein the alarm includes a communications module connected to a network (Wardwell; Col. 18, lines 6-47), and the visual indicator includes at least one of a light and a digital message (Wardwell; message displays; Col. 18, lines 6-47).
Regarding claim 6, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the food processing system of claim 3, wherein the alarm includes a communications module connected to a remote location (Wardwell; Col. 4, lines 27-34; Col. 6, lines 7-41; Col. 18, lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 7, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the food processing system of claim 1, wherein the first sensor includes a flag on the first component for rotational movement and a stationary mating pickup (Wardwell; the flag is inherently present for proper/accurate performance of the sensor; Col. 17, lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 8, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the food processing system of claim 1, wherein the first sensor includes an encoder (Wardwell; Col. 14, lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 9, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the food processing system of claim 2, further comprising: a third trunnion (Maupin; one of rollers 54 that supports end 46) including a third component (roller) for rotational movement (para. 0026; as shown in Fig. 1) and a fourth trunnion (Maupin; another roller 54 different from the first trunnion that supports end 46) including a fourth component (roller) for rotational movement (para. 0026; as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the third and fourth trunnions are disposed to support the second end (as shown in Fig. 1).
Maupin and Wardwell combined fail to disclose a third sensor disposed to sense a third rotational speed of the third component for rotational movement; and a fourth sensor disposed to sense a fourth rotational speed of the fourth component for rotational movement; wherein the alarm is responsive to the third sensor and the fourth sensor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a third sensor disposed to sense a third rotational speed of the third component, and a fourth sensor disposed to sense a fourth rotational speed of the fourth component, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Maupin teaches an apparatus for processing food (10; Fig. 1; para. 0024), comprising: a processing compartment (30 comprising 22 and 18), including a rotating component (22) having a first end (50) and a second end (46); a first support means (one of rollers 54 that supports end 50) for rotatably supporting the first end (para. 0026; as shown in Fig. 1).
Maupin fails to disclose means for sensing a first rotational speed of the first support means; alarm means, connected to the means for sensing, for providing an alarm in response to the first rotational speed indicating a malfunction of the first support means.
Wardwell teaches means for sensing a first rotational speed of the first support means (34; Col. 3, lines 26-29; Col. 6, lines 60-67; Col. 7, lines 1-11; Col. 17, lines 14-21); alarm means, connected to the means for sensing, for providing an alarm in response to the first rotational speed indicating a malfunction of the first support means (operational parameters (including rotational speed) are monitored by sensors, and operating data is retrieved showing operational alarms generated/message displays for operating assistance; Col. 18, lines 6-47).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Maupin, with Wardwell, by providing means for sensing a first rotational speed of the first support means, and alarm means, connected to the means for sensing, for providing an alarm in response to the first rotational speed indicating a malfunction of the first support means, to assure proper operation of the apparatus. POSITA would have known that providing a rotational speed sensor and an alarm responsive to the rotational speed sensor would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as assuring the proper operation of the apparatus and notify the user for maintenance or troubleshooting (Col. 18, lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 18, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the apparatus of claim 17, further comprising: a second support means (Maupin; another roller 54 different from the first support means that supports end 50) for rotatably supporting the second end (Maupin; para. 0026; as shown in Fig. 1).
Maupin and Wardwell combined fails to disclose means for sensing a second rotational speed of the second support means; second alarm means, connected to the means for sensing the second rotational speed, for providing a second alarm in response to the second rotational speed indicating a malfunction of the second support means.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide means for sensing a second rotational speed of the second support means; second alarm means, connected to the means for sensing the second rotational speed, for providing a second alarm in response to the second rotational speed indicating a malfunction of the second support means, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the alarm means is further for providing an alarm in response to the first rotational speed indicating the first rotational speed being different than a desired rotational speed (Wardwell; Col. 18, lines 53-67; Col. 19, lines 1-47).
Maupin and Wardwell combined fail to disclose wherein the first rotational speed being non-zero and less than a desired rotational speed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to claimed first rotational speed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the alarm means includes a visual indicator (Wardwell; message displays; Col. 18, lines 6-47).
Regarding claim 21, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the alarm means includes means for providing at least one of a light and a digital message at a location remote from the compartment (Wardwell; message displays; Col. 4, lines 27-34; Col. 6, lines 7-41; Col. 18, lines 6-47).
Regarding claim 22, Maupin and Wardwell combined teach the apparatus of claim 20, further comprising: a second support means (Maupin; another roller 54 different from the first support means that supports end 50) for rotatably supporting the second end (para. 0026; as shown in Fig. 1).
Maupin and Wardwell combined fails to disclose means for sensing a second rotational speed of the second support means; wherein the alarm means is further connected to the means for sensing a second rotational speed and is further for providing an alarm in response to the second rotational speed indicating a malfunction of the second support means.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide means for sensing a second rotational speed of the second support means; wherein the alarm means is further connected to the means for sensing a second rotational speed and is further for providing an alarm in response to the second rotational speed indicating a malfunction of the second support means, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Applicant submits that nothing in the cited portion discloses, teaches, or suggests "an alarm responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the first sensor," which amended claim 1 recites. In particular the lone mention of "alarms" in Wardwell is the highlighted statement that pre-formatted reports may present retrieved data to show alarms generated. Further, above appears to be the only mention of alarms in the entirety of Wardwell. Applicant respectfully submits that generating a pre-formatted report to show alarms generated does not disclose, teach or suggest, "an alarm responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the first sensor," which amended claim 1 recites. Instead, Wardwell only describes reporting about previously generated alarms, not generating new alarms. Specifically, Wardwell does not describe how the alarms are generated, let alone describe that the alarms are generated "responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the first sensor," which amended claim 1 recites.” on remarks page 21-32. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Wardwell teaches a first sensor (34) disposed to sense a first rotational speed of the first component for rotational movement (Col. 3, lines 26-29; Col. 6, lines 60-67; Col. 7, lines 1-11; Col. 17, lines 14-21); and an alarm responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the first sensor (operational parameters (including rotational speed) are monitored by sensors, and operating data is retrieved showing operational alarms generated/message displays for operating assistance; Col. 18, lines 6-47). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Maupin, with Wardwell, by providing a first sensor disposed to sense a first rotational speed of the first component for rotational movement, and an alarm responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the first sensor, to assure proper operation of the apparatus. POSITA would have known that providing a rotational speed sensor and an alarm responsive to the first rotational speed sensed by the rotational speed sensor would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as assuring the proper operation of the apparatus and notify the user for maintenance or troubleshooting (Col. 18, lines 48-52).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/13/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights