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 .
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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the angle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 contains the trademark/trade name NSK. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe it is the name of the company of the component being used and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The use of the term NSK, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons U.S. Patent No. 2,759,585 in view of Valster U.S. Patent No. 5,022,132.
Claim 1, Timmons teaches a gravity-conveyor Fig. 1 that is associated with an automated-cooking-restaurant (ACR), the gravity-conveyor comprising: i. a plate 10 having a plurality of openings 20; a plurality of bearings C4 L20-40, wherein each bearing is associated with an opening from the plurality of openings 20 Fig. 1, but does not teach as Valster teaches ii. a plurality of sealed-bearings 27 C3 L30-40; iii.; and iv. wherein each sealed-bearing 27 is caught to the plate 11 by two or more rods 40,26 that are related to the opening at 11 in which the sealed-bearing 27 is located Figs. 1-2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons with the bearing configuration taught in Valster with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 2, Timmons does not teach as Valster teaches the sealed-bearings is a sealed-ball-bearings (SBB) C3 L30-40.
Claim 3, Timmons teaches the plate 10 is made of metal (as known n conveyor assemblies).
Claim 4, Timmons does not teach as Valster teaches the two or more rods 40,26 are substantially perpendicular to the course of the movement of a cooking device over the opening at 11 that comprises the two or more rods 40,26 Figs. 1-2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons with the bearing configuration taught in Valster with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 5, Timmons teaches the angle between a rod 63 and the course of the movement of the cooking device is between 80 to 100 degrees Fig. 1, but does not teach as Valstrer teaches the use of two or more rods 40,26.
Claim 6, Timmons does not teach as Valster teaches at least one SBB 27 from the plurality of SBB, but does not specify that it is NSK 6800 DDU. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons with the bearing configuration taught in Valster with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 7, Timmons does not teach as Valster teaches the dimensions of the two or more rods 40,26 are designed to match the diameter of an inner ring of the sealed-bearing 27 Figs. 1-2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons with the bearing configuration taught in Valster with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 8, Timmons does not teach as Valster teaches at least one sealed-bearing 27 from the plurality of sealed-bearings has been slid over the two or more rods 40,26 of the associated opening in which the sealed-bearing 27 is located Figs. 1-2.
Claim 9, Timmons does not teach as Valster teaches at least two from the two or more rods 40,26 are bent for catching the sealed-bearing 27 to the plate 11 Figs. 1-2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons with the bearing configuration taught in Valster with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 10, Timmons teaches the plate 10 has an arc Fiig. 1, the rod 63 are directed toward the center of the arc Fig. 1, but does not teach as Valstrer teaches the use of two or more rods 40,26. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons with the bearing configuration taught in Valster with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 11, Timmons teaches the plate 10 is attached to an ACR via 40 by a front-panel 55 and a back-panel 55 Fig. 10.
Claim 14, Timmons teaches the front-panel 55 and the back-panel 55 enable the adjustment of the slope of the plate 10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons to provide adjustability with a reasonable expectation of success because
In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (Claims were directed to a handle for a fishing rod wherein the handle has a longitudinally adjustable finger hook, and the hand grip of the handle connects with the body portion by means of a universal joint. The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art-recognized need for adjustment in a fishing rod, the substitution of a universal joint for the single pivot of the prior art would have been obvious.).
Claim 15, Timmons teaches at least one rod 63 is able to be bent two or more times. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons to provide adjustability with a reasonable expectation of success because In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons U.S. Patent No. 2,759,585 in view of Valster U.S. Patent No. 5,022,132 in view of Munday U.S. Patent No. 10,899,546.
Claim 12, Timmons does not teach as Munday teaches the front panel 21 has a plurality of vertical slots Fig. 20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons with the frame configuration taught in Munday with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 13, Timmons does not teach as Munday teaches the back panel 22 has a hole and a horizontal slot Fig. 20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Timmons with the frame configuration taught in Munday with a reasonable expectation of success because
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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 (571) 272-6911. 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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS
Prosecution Insights