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
Applicants’ election without traverse of group I (claims 1-5 and 13-18) in the reply filed on 7/29/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/29/26.
Claim Objections
Claim14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 is missing a punctuation mark “.”at the end of the sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 1-2, the phrase “the glazing machine” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purpose of examination, the phrase “the automated glazing machine” is assumed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Van Duijnhoven et al (US 2003/0000394A1 in view of WO’98/05576.
As to claims 1 and 4, Van Duijnhoven et al teaches (see Figs 1-2) an automated glazing machine capable of applying sauce to at least one food product, the glazing machine comprising: a lower conveyor (3) comprising a top surface moving in a first direction; an upper conveyor (6) comprising a bottom surface, wherein the upper conveyor is spaced from the lower conveyor at a glazing location by a distance (distance between the parts 7, 8) that allows the at least one food product to simultaneously contact the bottom surface of the upper conveyor and the top surface of the lower conveyor (see Fig 1); and a sauce tray (container 7) positioned below the lower conveyor to transfer sauce to the at least one food product at the glazing location. Furthermore, in Duijnhoven et al the bottom surface of the upper conveyer can move in the second direction that is different from the first direction of the top surface of a lower conveyor (since longitudinal direction movement of the conveyor belts 3, 6 are taught on para [0026], different direction movement is not excluded). In any event, WO’576 teaches a lower conveyor (16) and an upper conveyor (18) a bottom surface capable of moving in a second direction that is different from the first direction the lower conveyor and upper conveyor are configured to move at different speeds, wherein the lower conveyor and upper conveyor configured to move at generally the same speed (see Fig 1 and page 6, line 16-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the second direction that is different from the first direction of the top surface of a lower conveyor to define a feed throat into which food products are fed by a chute as taught by WO’576 (see page 7, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, in Van Duijnhoven et al the at least one food product can comprise a skewer and at least one skewered food product on the skewer (no structure is added to the claimed apparatus).
As to claim 17, in Van Duijnhoven et al the glazing machine can transfer the sauce to an outer surface of the at least one skewered food product while limiting transfer of the sauce to portions of the skewer extending beyond the at least one skewered food product (no structure is added to the claimed apparatus).
Regarding claim 18, in Van Duijnhoven et al the glazing machine can operate such that minimal to no sauce can be applied to portions of the outer surface of the at least one skewered food product closest to the skewer (no structure is added to the claimed apparatus).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Duijnhoven et al (US 2003/0000394A1 in view of WO’98/05576 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benson et al (US 3,309,981).
Van Duijnhoven et al lacks teaching the lower conveyor comprises a mesh conveyor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include lower conveyor comprising a mesh conveyor in Van Duijnhoven et al to let the treatment material flow through after being applied to the food material.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Duijnhoven et al (US 2003/0000394A1 in view of WO’98/05576 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Auyoung (US 2007/0169630 A1).
Van Duijnhoven et al lacks teaching the lower conveyor and upper conveyor are configured to move at different speeds. Auyoung teaches (see para [0056]) the lower conveyor and upper conveyor are configured to move at different speeds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the lower conveyor and upper conveyor configured to move at different speeds in Van Duijnhoven et al to provide the food products sufficient time to achieve the form stable state as taught by Auyong (see [0042]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Duijnhoven et al (US 2003/0000394A1 in view of WO’98/05576 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP-2100515A1.
Although Van Duijnhoven et al teaches a substance is prepared in advance that would be destroyed by pumping on para [0002] the gazing machine can use material or a sauce that would need pumping. EP’515 teaches (see Fig 1 and para [0028] and [0059] a sauce supply tube (conduit 18 in communication with pump 20) for pumping sauce from a sauce supply tank to the sauce tray. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a supply tube pumping in Van Duijnhoven et al for the returning of the over-sprayed material collected in the basin toward the delivering group as taught by EP’515 (see para [0028]).
Claims 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art of record does not disclose or suggest and automated glazing machine, the glazing machine comprising, among others, a lower conveyor comprising a top surface moving in a first direction; an upper conveyor comprising a bottom surface moving in a second direction that is different from the first direction, wherein the upper conveyor is spaced from the lower conveyor at a glazing location by a distance that allows the at least one food product to simultaneously contact the bottom surface of the upper conveyor and the top surface of the lower conveyor; and a sauce tray positioned below the lower conveyor, wherein the top surface of the lower conveyor and the bottom surface of the upper conveyor are configured to move relative to each other such that contact between the at least one skewered food product, the top surface, and the bottom surface rotates the at least one food product.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP-2017132626A teaches alignment machine having a unit skewering food with sauce (see Fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEWEBDAR T TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1238. The examiner can normally be reached 7.00-3:30 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
YEWEBDAR T. TADESSE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights