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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 17-22 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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. Such claim limitations are: “a first support means”, “means for sensing a first rotational speed” and “alarm means” in claim 17, and “a second support means”, “means for sensing a second rotational speed” and “second alarm means” in claim 18. As noticed in paragraph 0036, end 203 is rotatably supported by a pair of trunnions 301 and 303, shown in Figure 3…End 205 is also supported by trunnions 401 and 403, which are identical to trunnions 301 and 303, as shown in Figure 4. As noticed in paragraph 0037, a flag 501 is located on wheel305 and a mating proximity sensor 503 is located on a stationary portion of trunnion 301. Together the flag and mating sensor are a sensor that senses the rotational speed of trunnions 301, 303, 401 and 403. As noticed in paragraph 0012-0015 and 0031, an alarm module includes an intended rotational speed one of the trunnions, and the alarm is part of the alarm module, and the alarm is responsive to a function of the intended rotational speed and to the first sensor in another alternative. The alarm includes a visual indicator in one embodiment. The alarm can include a communications module connected to a network,
and the visual indicator includes at least one of a light and a digital message, in various embodiments. The alarm can include a communications module connected to a remote
location in one alternative. The alarm can be a visible alarm, light (such as flashing a red LED), a negative alarm (such as turning off a green LED), an email, text, or other network or wifi signal (either positive indicating a problem or the absence of a signal indicating no problem), or an auditory alarm (either positive or negative). Alarm, as used herein, is a visual or audible signal such as a light, horn, alpha-numeric messages etc.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a location remote from the compartment” should read “at a location remote from the compartment”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 sensor (operational alarms are generated; 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 sensor, 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 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 alarms are generated; 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2024/0375028, US 10,112,785 and US 6,419,094.
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 03/19/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761