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 § 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)(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.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WIPO application WO 2016053095 A2 (hereinafter Dekker).
Regarding claim 17, Dekker discloses a processing apparatus for food or the like, comprising: a worm for conveying food (Fig. 3, No. 42); and a worm housing including a worm chamber for receiving the worm (Fig. 3, No. 41), said worm housing including a displacement component movable between a closed position in which the displacement component forms part of a boundary of the worm chamber (Fig. 3, No. 50), and an open position in which the displacement component clears access to the worm chamber (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Dekker discloses the processing device of claim 17, wherein the worm housing is subdivided in an axial direction into at least two parts, with one of the at least two parts forming the displacement component (Fig. 3, Nos. 41 & 50).
Claims 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 1015735 B1 (hereinafter Sorensen).
Regarding claim 33, Sorensen discloses a method for maintaining a processing apparatus for food or the like, which comprises a worm housing with a worm mounted therein (Fig. 1, Nos. 4 and 9), the method comprising moving a displacement component of the worm housing to an open position in which the displacement component clears access to the worm (claim 10).
Regarding claim 36, Sorensen discloses the method of claim 33, further comprising moving the displacement component to a closed position in which the displacement component forms part of a boundary of a worm chamber of the worm housing (Fig 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.
Claims 19-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dekker in view of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmY8F0W_92k (hereinafter Weepac).
Regarding claim 19, Dekker discloses the processing device of claim 17. However, Dekker does not disclose that the processing device further comprises a removal device designed to move the worm into and/or out of the worm chamber. Weepac shows a screw conveyor that has a removal section that is attached to the screw/worm to remove it from the device (0:03-0:16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processing device of Dekker with the removal device of Weepac. The motivation would be to increase the ease of cleaning and maintenance.
Regarding claim 20, Dekker and Weepac disclose the processing device of claim 19. However, Dekker does not disclose that the device includes at least one bearing in which the worm is mounted. Dekker shows that the worm is mounted via a bearing (0:37-0:42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processing device of Dekker with the bearing of Weepac. The motivation would be to provide a reliable means of rotation for the worm.
Regarding claim 21, Dekker and Weepac disclose the processing device of claim 19. However, Dekker does not disclose that the removal device Is supported on the worm housing in an axial direction and/or radial direction. The removal device of Weepac is connected to worm housing concentrically, meaning the housing and the removal device are by definition on the same axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processing device of Dekker with the axial support of Weepac. The motivation would be to facilitate a well-fitting and balanced assembly, as poorly balanced rotating machines are known in the art to be prone to excess vibration, wear, and failure.
Regarding claim 24, Dekker discloses the processing device of claim 17. Dekker also discloses that there is a worm that has a working area in which the worm comes into contact with the food to process it (Fig. 1A). However, Dekker does not disclose a main bearing designed to support the worm in a portion located in a conveying direction of the worm upstream of the working area. Weepac shows a bearing in the downstream portion of its screw conveyor (0:37-0:42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processing device of Dekker with the bearing of Weepac. The motivation would be to provide a consistent rotation axis for the device, as there is little clearance between the edge of the worm and the wall in Weepac’s device. An unreliable centering means would cause the worm to contact and possibly damage the housing walls.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in view of Weepac. Sorensen discloses the method of claim 33, but does not disclose moving the worm into and/or out of the worm chamber by a removal device. Weepac demonstrates a method to move the worm via a removal device (0:03-0:16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Sorensen with the method of Weepac. The motivation would be to provide a simple way to clean and perform maintenance on the worm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 23, 25-31 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 32 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARI JADAN MEDDLING whose telephone number is (571)272-8178. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 5712726911. 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.
/AMARI J MEDDLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651