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 . 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim, US 20240024922 A1.
Claim 1
Kim (Better shown in Fig.5/figs.1-5) discloses:
An automatic food inspection device, comprising:
a feeding container (110/111) for accommodating objects to be tested (pellets P, ¶0002);
a track conveying device (120/121/125/130) connected to the feeding container (110/111), wherein the track conveying device (120/121/125/130) comprises:
a conveying track 121/130 having a first end (vibrator 125 end) and a second end (second end toward 130); and
a vibrator 126 connected to the first end (as shown in fig.5) of the conveying track 121 to drive the objects (P, and function met by vibrator 126) to be tested (function met by analyzers160) to move forward to the second end (end toward 130);
an analysis control module (150/160) judging qualities of the objects (P) to be tested (e.g., ¶0044¶0051); and
a screening module (180/170) classifying the objects (P) to be tested according to judgment results (e.g.,¶0052) of the analysis control module (150/160).
Claim 2
Kim teaches the automatic food inspection device of claim 1, wherein the conveying track 121/130 comprises a U-shaped track (fig.5).
Claim 3
Kim teaches the automatic food inspection device of claim 2, further comprising:
a propulsion device 127 installed below the feeding container110/111 to push the objects (P) to be tested entering into the first end of the conveying track 121.
Claim 10
Kim teaches the automatic food inspection device of claim 1, wherein the vibrator comprises a linear vibrator (index vibrator ¶0026) and a vibration direction of the linear vibrator is parallel to a conveying direction of the conveying track 121.
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 4-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, US 20240024922 A1 in view of GOEDECKE, DE 10034765 A1.
Claim 4
Kim teaches the automatic food inspection device of claim 3, but does not specifically teach wherein the propulsion device comprises at least one pneumatic cylinder, and at least one pneumatic cylinder push rod of the at least one pneumatic cylinder is aligned with at least one U-shaped track.
In the similar field of endeavor, GOEDECKE in e.g., figs 1-2 teaches wherein the propulsion device comprises at least one pneumatic cylinder 14, and at least one pneumatic cylinder push rod (piston17) of the at least one pneumatic cylinder 14 is aligned with at least one U-shaped track 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify propulsion system of Kim’s device wherein the modified Kim’s propulsion device comprises at least one pneumatic cylinder, and at least one pneumatic cylinder push rod of the at least one pneumatic cylinder is aligned with at least one U-shaped track as taught by GOEDECKE. One of ordinary skill in the art knows pneumatic propulsion systems as a safe and clean mechanism and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transport the bulk sample from the sampling station to the laboratory (as suggested in Description section of GOEDECKE). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (GOEDECKE ‘s pneumatic propulsion) for another (Kim’s propulsion of objects) to obtain predictable results (a safe mechanism for pushing objects), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 5
Kim in view of GOEDECKE teaches the automatic food inspection device of claim 4, Kim teaches further comprising:
a feeding guide chute 112 installed below the feeding container 111 to accommodate the objects P to be tested, wherein the objects to be tested in the feeding guide chute 112 (pushed) into the at least one U-shaped track of the conveying track 121/130. GOEDECKE teaches wherein the at least one pneumatic cylinder push rod of the at least one pneumatic cylinder pushes the objects to be tested in the feeding guide chute 112 (pushed) into the at least one U-shaped track of the conveying track 121/130, the at least one pneumatic cylinder push rod 17 of the at least one pneumatic cylinder 14 pushes the objects 1 for the reason and motivation above.
Claim 6
Kim in view of GOEDECKE teaches the automatic food inspection device of claim 5, GOEDECKE teaches further comprising: an inlet stopper 7 installed at one end of the feeding guide chute 2,.20 , the inlet stopper 7 comprising at least one opening respectively aligned with the at least one U-shaped track 2 to ensure the objects 1 to be tested being pushed into the at least one U-shaped track 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use GOEDECKE ‘s stopper for the modified Kim‘s pneumatic propulsion mechanism. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to pushing objects without returning object in wrong place .
Claim 7
Kim teaches the automatic food inspection device of claim 2, wherein the track conveying device further comprises:
an anti-shooting baffle disposed above the conveying track to prevent the objects to be tested shooting from the conveying track.
anti-shooting baffle 7 disposed above the conveying track 2 to prevent the objects 1 shooting from the conveying track 2.
Claims 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, US 20240024922 A1 in view of GOEDECKE, DE 10034765 A1 and KIM-2, CN 107430141 A.
Claim 8
Kim in view of GOEDECKE teaches the automatic food inspection device of claim 4, Kim does not specifically teach wherein the at least one U-shaped track comprises a first U-shaped track and a second U-shaped track, wherein the second U-shaped track is parallel with the first U-shaped track to deliver the objects to be tested with the first U-shaped track and the second U-shaped track. However, first KIM-2 in figs.2a,2b teaches a first U-shaped track and a second U-shaped track, wherein the second U-shaped track is parallel with the first U-shaped track to deliver the objects to be tested with the first U-shaped track and the second U-shaped track. Secondly: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate a first U-shaped track and comprising a second U-shaped track, wherein the second U-shaped track is parallel with the first U-shaped track to deliver the objects to be tested with the first U-shaped track and the second U-shaped track, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977).
Claim 9
Kim in view of GOEDECKE, KIM-2 teaches the automatic food inspection device of claim 8, KIM-2 teaches wherein the first U-shaped track and the second U-shaped track respectively comprise:
a first retaining wall (e.g., 13);
a second retaining wall (e.g., 11) disposed opposite to the first retaining wall (fig.2b);
a horizontal base plate (12);
a first connecting arc (e.g., fig.2b) connected between the first retaining wall 13 and the horizontal base plate 12; and
a second connecting arc (e.g., fig.2b) connected between the second retaining wall 11 and the horizontal base plate 12, wherein the horizontal base plate 12 includes a width (almost zero) smaller than a maximum diameter of the objects P,v to be tested, and a width between the first retaining wall 13 and the second retaining wall 11 is greater than the maximum diameter of the objects P,v to be tested (width of 12 is almost zero).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use KIM-2‘s first U-shaped track and the second U-shaped track for the modified Kim‘s s first U-shaped track and the second U-shaped track comprise a first retaining wall; a second retaining wall disposed opposite to the first retaining wall; a horizontal base plate; a first connecting arc connected between the first retaining wall and the horizontal base plate; and a second connecting arc connected between the second retaining wall and the horizontal base plate, wherein the horizontal base plate includes a width smaller than a maximum diameter of the objects to be tested, and a width between the first retaining wall and the second retaining wall is greater than the maximum diameter of the objects to be tested as taught by KIM-2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control movement and speed of objects for monitoring1.
KIM-2 does not explicitly teach 2-3 times. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that this design would affect moving speed2. The specific claimed 2-3 times, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” scale disclosed by KIM-2 that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired movement speed, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the 2-3 times is used, as already suggested by KIM-2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 See KIM-2 citations :” Abstract: moving speed is minimized to reduce the pressure of the analysis object plant... can effectively acquire analysis data of various plant in minimize the motion of the analysis object plant so as to improve the accuracy and efficiency of plant analysis”. And ”container V and mobile speed is minimized in this embodiment.”
2 See KIM-2 citations :” Abstract: moving speed is minimized to reduce the pressure of the analysis object plant…. can effectively acquire analysis data of various plant in minimize the motion of the analysis object plant so as to improve the accuracy and efficiency of plant analysis”. And ”container V and mobile speed is minimized in this embodiment.”