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 § 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.
Claims 16, 21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 20060070927 to Henry.
With respect to claim 16, Henry discloses a handling installation for handling food items, the handling installation including:
at least one conveying device having at least one support surface configured to support a plurality of food items, (see numeral 30 and [0023], fifth sentence)
wherein the conveying device is driven by at least one driving device to move the support surface along a conveying direction to convey the food items in the conveying direction; and ([0023], second to last sentence)
at least one separating device arranged downstream from the conveying device, with respect to the conveying direction, (see numeral 22 in Fig. 2 and [0023], last sentence)
the separating device being configured to at least partially separate clusters of food items which are conveyed on the support surface; (see numeral 10 in Fig. 1 and [0018] sentences 1-3)
wherein the separating device has at least one conveying space through which the food items can be conveyed and (see numeral 37 in Fig. 2 and [0024], first sentence)
at least one deflecting device being positionable to at least partially protrude into the conveying space to deflect at least one first food item at least partially away from at least one second food item in order to increase the spacing between at least the first food item and the second food item to separate a food cluster (see numeral 14 in Fig. 2 and [0019], last sentence, wherein the vacuum actuated air protrudes into the conveying space; the food is spaced apart from the cluster entering at barriers 32).
With respect to claim 21, Henry discloses further including
at least one detection device, an optical detection device, configured to detect each food item on the conveying device(s) and/or the separating device(s) and (see numeral 20 in Fig. 2 and [0019], fourth sentence)
provide information related to a location and/or an orientation of each food item, ([0019] fifth sentence)
wherein at least one deflecting device is positionable and/or a conveying speed of at least one conveying device and/or conveying speeds of a plurality of conveying devices (see numeral 34 in Fig. 2 and [0023], sentences 3-5)
is are adjustable by means of a controller and optionally at least one actuator communicatively coupled to the controller, (see numeral 20 in Fig. 2) and
based at least partially on the information provided by the detection device, the controller and the actuator being configured to perform the positioning and/or adjusting automatically (see numeral 20 in Fig. 2 and [0018], sentences 2-6).
With respect to claim 30, Henry discloses a method for handling food items including the following steps:
conveying a plurality of food items on at least one support surface of at least one conveying device, see numeral 30 and [0023], fifth sentence
the conveying device being driven by at least one driving device to move the support surface along a conveying direction to convey the food items in the conveying direction; ([0023], second to last sentence)
feeding the plurality of food items from the support surface of the conveying device to a conveying space of a separating device arranged downstream from the conveying device, with respect to the conveying direction, the food items being conveyed through the conveying space; at least partially separating clusters of food items which are conveyed on the support surface and/or in the conveying space (see annotated figure below):
PNG
media_image1.png
450
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
by positioning at least one deflecting device of the separating device to at least partially protrude into the conveying space to deflect at least one first food item at least partially away from at least one second food item in order to increase the spacing between at least the first food item and the second food item (see numeral 14 in Fig. 2 and [0019], last sentence, wherein the vacuum actuated air protrudes into the conveying space; the food is spaced apart from the cluster, left to right, entering at barriers 32).
Claim 16 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 20200307916 to Schroder.
With respect to claim 16, Schroder teaches a handling installation for handling food items, the handling installation including:
at least one conveying device having at least one support surface configured to support a plurality of food items, (see numeral 11 in Fig. 1 and [0003], [0066], first sentence)
wherein the conveying device is driven by at least one driving device to move the support surface along a conveying direction to convey the food items in the conveying direction (see numeral 57 in Fig. 1 and [0069], first sentence); and
at least one separating device arranged downstream from the conveying device, with respect to the conveying direction, (see numeral 29 in Fig. 1 and [0066], last sentence)
the separating device being configured to at least partially separate clusters of food items which are conveyed on the support surface; (see numeral 13 in Fig. 1, wherein the food 11 is separated, [0067], last sentence)
wherein the separating device has at least one conveying space through which the food items can be conveyed and (see numeral 13 in Fig. 1 and [0067], last sentence)
at least one deflecting device being positionable to at least partially protrude into the conveying space to deflect at least one first food item at least partially away from at least one second food item in order to increase the spacing between at least the first food item and the second food item to separate a food cluster (see numeral 29 in Fig. 1 and numeral 13, which protrudes into the conveying space 23, deflecting the food products and increasing the spacing between them transversely).
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.
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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroder as set out above in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9216862 to Wallace.
With respect to claim 17, Schroder includes all the claim language but does not teach wherein the separating device has a floor which at least partially delimits the conveying space and along which the food items can be conveyed through the conveying space, wherein the deflecting device is positionable to protrude through at least a portion of the floor and into the conveying space.
Wallace teaches wherein the separating device has a floor which at least partially delimits the conveying space and along which the food items can be conveyed through the conveying space (see annotated illustration below):
PNG
media_image2.png
732
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
wherein the deflecting device is positionable to protrude through at least a portion of the floor and into the conveying space (col. 1, lines 51-53 wherein the "sorter" is the deflection device as claimed and see col. 1, lines 31-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the disclosure of Schroder with the teachings of Wallace to combine the stopping and directional structure of Wallace with the deflecting structure of Schroder to better control the flow of goods along the conveying route and the distribution route.
With respect to claim 18, Schroder includes all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the deflecting device is movable between a non-deflecting position, in which the deflecting device is retracted from the conveying space, and a deflecting position, in which the deflecting device protrudes at least partially into the conveying space to deflect the at least one first food item at least partially away from the at least one second food item in order to increase the spacing between at least the first food item and the second food item to separate a food cluster.
Wallace teaches wherein the deflecting device is movable between a non-deflecting position, in which the deflecting device is retracted from the conveying space, and a deflecting position, in which the deflecting device protrudes at least partially into the conveying space to deflect the at least one first food item at least partially away from the at least one second food item in order to increase the spacing between at least the first food item and the second food item to separate a food cluster (col. 1, lines 31-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the disclosure of Schroder with the teachings of Wallace to combine the stopping and directional structure of Wallace with the deflecting structure of Schroder to better control the flow of goods along the conveying route and the distribution route.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of U.S. 10059522 to Wargo et al.
With respect to claim 24, Henry includes all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the separating device is configured such that the food items can be conveyed through the at least one conveying space by means of a gravitational force.
Wargo teaches wherein the separating device is configured such that the food items can be conveyed through the at least one conveying space by means of a gravitational force (see floor 14 in Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 19-22, wherein the side walls 18 in combination with the floor constitute the deflection device floor). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wargo with the disclosure of Henry because gravity is a constant and its use simplifies the mechanics of the operation.
With respect to claim 25, Henry includes all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the separating device is configured to provide a plurality of lanes, including at least 2 lanes, in each of which food items can be conveyed, in a single file.
Wargo teaches wherein the separating device is configured to provide a plurality of lanes, including at least 2 lanes, in each of which food items can be conveyed, in a single file (see numeral 14 in Fig 1 and col. 2, line 22). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wargo with the disclosure of Henry because by separating into lanes the distribution of the food would be better controlled for later handling.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry and further in view of Wargo as they are set out above.
With respect to claim 26, Henry includes all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the deflecting device is movable along a single degree of freedom, up-and-down, between a non-deflecting position, in which the deflecting device is retracted from the conveying space, and a deflecting position, in which the deflecting device protrudes at least partially into the conveying space.
Wargo teaches wherein the deflecting device is movable along a single degree of freedom, up-and-down, between a non-deflecting position, in which the deflecting device is retracted from the conveying space, and a deflecting position, in which the deflecting device protrudes at least partially into the conveying space (col. 1, lines 51-53 wherein the "sorter" is the deflection device as claimed and see col. 1, lines 31-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wargo with the disclosure of Schroder to provide flexibility to accommodate the status of the clusters of food as they arrive at the deflection site.
Henry teaches to deflect the at least one first food item at least partially away from the at least one second food item in order to increase the spacing between at least the first food item and the second food item to separate a food cluster (see numeral 14 in Fig. 2 and [0019], last sentence, wherein the vacuum actuated air protrudes into the conveying space; the food is spaced apart from the cluster entering at barriers 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wargo with the disclosure of Henry to provide flexibility to accommodate the status of the clusters of food as they arrive at the deflection site.
With respect to claim 27, Henry includes all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the deflecting device is configured to be orientated relative to the conveying direction of the food items along the conveying device such that a longitudinal axis of the deflecting device is angled relative to the conveying direction by a non-zero degree angle, by an angle of at least 10°.
Wargo teaches the deflecting device is configured to be orientated relative to the conveying direction of the food items along the conveying device such that a longitudinal axis of the deflecting device is angled relative to the conveying direction by a non-zero degree angle, by an angle of at least 10° (see Fig. 1 and angled chute 13 and conveyor 10).
Claims 23 and 28-29 are design choices, “Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art”. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 and 22 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER RUSHIN, III whose telephone number is (313)446-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4p.
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.
/LESTER RUSHIN, III/
Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651