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 06/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Similarly, claim 18 is a substantial duplicate of claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-3, 7, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bass (US 6308529, hereinafter Bass).
Regarding claim 1, Bass discloses an immersion treatment system for treating a product by immersion in a treatment liquid, the immersion treatment system comprising:
a treatment tank (figure 1, tank 12) for holding the treatment liquid for treating the product (column 5, lines 8-9, “tank forms a reservoir for chilled water”); and
an auger (auger 20) comprising a plurality of auger panels (segments 24A-24G) for moving the product and the treatment liquid, a first auger panel (figure 4, segment 24B) of the plurality of auger panels comprising:
a main panel section (face 24’),
a leading edge (at the right of segment 24B, based on the direction of rotation 28), and
a trailing edge (at the left of grill 36), wherein at least one of the leading edge and the trailing edge comprises at least one gap (passages 26), and wherein at least one grille passage is defined at least in part by the at least one gap (see grill 36). With regard to the weld joint limitation, this is considered to be a product by process limitation. It is well-settled that product by process limitations are only limited to the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the connection between the structures of Bass would be structurally equivalent to the claimed weld joint, and thus the claim is met. It is noted that this reasoning with regard to the weld joint applied to all apparatus claims below, even if it is not repeated in every rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Bass discloses the leading edge (figure 4, right edge of segment 24B) corresponds to a radial edge that leads in a direction of rotation (see arrow 28).
Regarding claim 3, Bass discloses the trailing edge (figure 4, left of grill 36) corresponds to a radial edge that leads in a direction opposite of rotation (see arrow 28).
Regarding claim 7, Bass discloses the at least one weld joint (see rejection of claim 1 above) comprises at least one corner joint (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, Bass discloses an auger for an immersion treatment system, the auger comprising:
a plurality of auger panels (segments 24A-24G) for moving a product and a liquid in a treatment tank (tank 12); and
a first auger panel (figure 4, segment 24B) of the plurality of auger panels comprising at least: a leading edge (at the right of segment 24B, based on the direction of rotation 28), and a trailing edge (at the left of grill 36), wherein at least one of the leading edge and the trailing edge comprises at least one gap (passages 26), and wherein at least one grille passage is defined at least in part by the at least one gap (see grill 36). With regard to the weld joint limitation, this is considered to be a product by process limitation. It is well-settled that product by process limitations are only limited to the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the connection between the structures of Bass would be structurally equivalent to the claimed weld joint, and thus the claim is met. It is noted that this reasoning with regard to the weld joint applied to all apparatus claims below, even if it is not repeated in every rejection.
Regarding claim 16, Bass discloses the auger panels are connected to a central shaft (figure 4, shaft 22).
Regarding claim 20, Bass discloses the at least one weld joint (see rejection of claim 15 above) comprises at least one corner joint (see figure 4).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bass (US 6308529, hereinafter Bass).
Regarding claims 4, 17, and 18, Bass discloses the first auger panel being built from a single piece (see figure 4). Although Bass does not explicitly disclose sheet metal for the auger panels, Bass discloses the use of stainless steel in the device (column 5, line 45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sheet metal as recited because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized metal as a suitable material for the device based on the disclosure of Bass. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bass (US 6308529, hereinafter Bass) in view of Engels (US 3734471, hereinafter Engels).
Regarding claim 5, Bass is silent to a circumferential edge tab as recited. Engels teaches a rotating shaft with a plurality of panels thereon (figure 1) wherein the panels have a circumferential edge tab that extends from a bend in the main panel section to a circumferential edge (see paddle 14 in figure 7). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Bass with the circumferential edge tabs of Engels for the purpose of removing material at the inner wall of the treatment tank (Engels: column 5, line 20).
Claims 6, 8-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bass (US 6308529, hereinafter Bass) in view of Shell (US PGPub 2017/0042165, hereinafter Shell).
Regarding claim 6, Bass is silent to bends as recited. Shell teaches a device including auger panels that have a plurality of bends that form a substantially triangular shape that provides axial rigidity (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Bass with the bends of Shell for the purpose of reducing flex of the panels in the radial direction.
Regarding claim 8, Bass discloses a method comprising:
forming an auger (auger 20) comprising a plurality of auger panels (segments 24A-24G) for moving a product and a liquid in a treatment tank (tank 12); and
forming a first auger panel (figure 4, segment 24B) of the plurality of auger panels, the first auger panel comprising at least: a leading edge (at the right of segment 24B, based on the direction of rotation 28) and a trailing edge (at the left of grill 36), wherein at least one of the leading edge and the trailing edge comprises at least one gap (passages 26), and wherein at least one grille passage is defined at least in part by the at least one gap (see grill 36).
Bass does not explicitly disclose a method step involving a weld joint as recited. Shell teaches an auger including auger panels wherein the panels are joined by a weld joint (paragraph 0126). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the method of Bass with the weld joints of Shell for the purpose of securely attaching the panels in the device.
Regarding claim 9, Bass discloses the auger panels are connected to a central shaft (figure 4, shaft 22).
Regarding claim 10, Bass discloses the auger comprising an Archimedes screw (see figure 1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Bass discloses the first auger panel being built from a single piece (see figure 4). Although Bass does not explicitly disclose sheet metal for the auger panels, Bass discloses the use of stainless steel in the device (column 5, line 45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sheet metal as recited because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized metal as a suitable material for the device based on the disclosure of Bass. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 13, Bass is silent to bends as recited. Shell teaches a device including auger panels that have a plurality of bends that form a substantially triangular shape that provides axial rigidity (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Bass with the bends of Shell for the purpose of reducing flex of the panels in the radial direction.
Regarding claim 14, Bass discloses the joint comprises at least one corner joint (see figure 4). The obviousness of using weld joints has been established above in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, Bass is silent to bends as recited. Shell teaches a device including auger panels that have a plurality of bends that provides axial rigidity (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Bass with the bends of Shell for the purpose of reducing flex of the panels in the radial direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses devices having helical panels fixed on a shaft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights