DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 9 and 21-23 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "The egg processing system" at the beginning of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant made a typographical mistake and intended to start claim 9 by writing “An egg processing system” instead of “The egg processing system”. For purposes of examination, it is presumed that applicant intended to have claim 9 be an independent claim.
Claim 9 recites “at least one slit” in line 3 of claim 9. However, claim 9 later recites “said slit” in lines 9-10 of claim 9. In a situation where more than one slit is present, it is not clear if the phrase “said slit” corresponds to only one slit or to each of the slits. Applicant is encouraged to be consistent in their naming of features. It creates confusion to recite “at least one slit” but then later recite simply “said slit”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the weight device" at the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant made a typographical mistake and intended to write “the weighing device” instead of “the weight device”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the transport of the eggs" in the second line of claim 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the weight device" at the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant made a typographical mistake and intended to write “the weighing device” instead of “the weight device”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the transport of the eggs" in the second line of claim 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2038768 by Zababakhin in view of CN209410529 by Wang.
With regard to claim 1, Zababakhin teaches an egg-processing apparatus, wherein the egg-processing apparatus includes a transport structure configured for supporting eggs along a transport direction (this “transport direction” being left-to-right when looking at Figure 4; Abstract; pages 4-5 of translation). Zababakhin’s transport structure comprises two neighboring section – a feeding section comprising ramp 10 in Figure 4 and a weighing section positioned above scale 12 in Figure 4 (pages 4-5 of translation). These two neighboring sections are separated by a slit such that the weighing of the egg occurs independently of ramp 10 (pages 4-5 of translation and Figure 4). Each of these two neighboring sections (the feeding section and the weighing section) are configured for directly supporting and guiding the eggs along the transport direction such that the eggs roll toward and along the weighing device (pages 4-5 of translation and Figure 4).
Zababakhin does not teach that one of the two neighboring section is movably arranged with respect to the other of the two neighboring sections.
Wang teaches that a piece of egg-handling equipment can advantageously be supported on the ground by height-adjusting mechanical feet that allow the height of the equipment to be adjusted for the convenience of a user (Abstract; pages 4-6, in particular the top paragraph of page 6 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin such that each section (including the above-discussed two neighboring section) of the apparatus is separately supported by height-adjusting mechanical feet that allow the height of their respective section to be adjusted for the convenience of a user. In the art of food processing equipment, it is well known that a user sometimes has to do maintenance activities such as inspecting and/or cleaning equipment, and allowing a user to adjust equipment height to their convenience (due to the fact that different humans have different heights) would facilitate the performance of such maintenance activities. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wang, who teaches that a piece of egg-handling equipment can advantageously be supported on the ground by height-adjusting mechanical feet that allow the height of the equipment to be adjusted for the convenience of a user.
In this combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the feeding section (of the above-discussed two neighboring sections) reads on applicant’s cleaning section because it is movably arranged (due to the height-adjusting mechanical feet used to support the feeding section) with respect to the weighing section. In this combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, since the feeding section is structurally capable of being moved vertically up and down relative to the weighing section, movement of the feeding section is structurally capable of performing cleaning action by dislodging material that had adhered to both the feeding section and the weighing section.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, as developed thus far, does not explicitly recite that the feeding section is configured to be moveable over a distance of more than 1 mm. However, in the developed combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the purpose of the height-adjusting mechanical feet used to support the feeding section is to allow the height of the feeding section to be adjustable for the convenience of a human user doing maintenance. Since it is well known that different humans can have height differences that are much greater than 1 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin in view of Wang such that the vertical distance over such the height-adjusting mechanical feet allow the feeding section to vary is greater than 1 mm, as humans heights can vary by much more than 1 mm and having a larger range of vertical motion would allow maintenance to be convenient for a broader range of humans, height-wise.
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the feeding section (comprising ramp 10 in Figure 4 of Zababakhin) is a sloped section.
With regard to claim 8, in the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the feeding section comprises parallel rubber guides 2 that define an egg guiding track along the transport direction (pages 4-5 of Zababakhin translation). The combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang is silent about having parallel rubber guides on the weighing section. However, since eggs also have to be moved onto and off the weighing section and since Zababakhin teaches that such parallel rubber guides 2 provide surfaces along an egg can successfully be propelled (pages 4-5 of Zababakhin translation), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin in view of Wang such that the top of the weighing section also comprises its own parallel rubber guides for supporting and guiding movement of the eggs. In the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the egg needs to be supported and have its movement directed in the transport direction while on the weighing section, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Zababakhin, who teaches that parallel rubber guides can successfully support and guide the movement of eggs on an apparatus section. In this combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the slit is defined between two opposite edges of opposite guides of the two neighboring sections.
With regard to claim 19, the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, as developed thus far, does not explicitly recite that the feeding section is configured to be moveable over a distance of more than 1 cm. However, in the developed combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the purpose of the height-adjusting mechanical feet used to support the feeding section is to allow the height of the feeding section to be adjustable for the convenience of a human user doing maintenance. Since it is well known that different humans can have height differences that are much greater than 1 cm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin in view of Wang such that the vertical distance over such the height-adjusting mechanical feet allow the feeding section to vary is greater than 1 cm, as humans heights can vary by much more than 1 cm and having a larger range of vertical motion would allow maintenance to be convenient for a broader range of humans, height-wise.
With regard to claim 20, in the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the feeding section comprises parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides 2 that define an egg guiding track along the transport direction (pages 4-5 of Zababakhin translation). The combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang is silent about having parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides on the weighing section. However, since eggs also have to be moved onto and off the weighing section and since Zababakhin teaches that such parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides 2 provide surfaces along an egg can successfully be propelled (pages 4-5 of Zababakhin translation), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin in view of Wang such that the top of the weighing section also comprises its own parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides for supporting and guiding movement of the eggs. In the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the egg needs to be supported and have its movement directed in the transport direction while on the weighing section, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Zababakhin, who teaches that parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides can successfully support and guide the movement of eggs on an apparatus section. In this combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the slit is defined between two opposite edges of opposite guides of the two neighboring sections.
With regard to claim 22, in the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang, the apparatus effects transport of the eggs by gravity by having the eggs roll down ramp 10 (see Figure 4 of Zababakhin) such that the eggs roll (without a conveyor) from an initial vertical level over support surfaces of the neighboring sections of the transport structure to a second vertical level that is lower than said initial vertical level, and wherein the rolling eggs pass the weighing device (pages 4-5 of Zababakhin translation).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2038768 by Zababakhin in view of CN209410529 by Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR200357183 by Park.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang doesn’t provide much detail about how the weighing process is performed by the weighing section, and the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang doesn’t teach that the weighing section vertically moves when weighing an egg.
Park teaches a weight sensor for weighing an egg, wherein the weight sensor comprises a vertically-arranged spring (item 33 in Figure 2; Abstract; page 3 of translation and claim section of Park). In the art of using a spring to weigh something, it is well-known that the displacement of a spring by a weighed object can be used to measure said object’s weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin in view of Wang such that the weighing section comprises a vertically-arranged spring below the support surface of the weighing section used to support the egg (during weighing of an egg), wherein the vertically-arranged spring allows the vertical displacement of the support surface and the spring (by the weight of egg) to be measured. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Park, who teaches a weight sensor for weighing an egg, wherein the weight sensor comprises a vertically-arranged spring, and motivation was provided by the fact that in the art of using a spring to weigh something, it is well-known that the displacement of a spring by a weighed object can be used to measure said object’s weight.
The combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang in view of Park, as developed thus far, does not explicitly recite that the feeding section is configured to be moveable over a distance that is greater than a distance over which the support surface is displaced by the weight of an egg during egg weighing. However, in the developed combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang in view of Park, the purpose of the height-adjusting mechanical feet used to support the feeding section is to allow the height of the feeding section to be adjustable for the convenience of a human user doing maintenance. Since it is well known that different humans can have different heights over a wide range (some people are very tall, some people are short, and so on), it would have been obvious (in accordance with MPEP 2144.05) to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin in view of Wang in view of Park by optimizing the height range over which the mechanical feet can allow a person to adjust a section’s height for human convenience during maintenance, as that height range affects the range of different human heights that can be accommodated for maintenance convenience.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2038768 by Zababakhin in view of CN209410529 by Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2019/0094857 by Jertberg.
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang does not teach using an actuator when changing the vertical height of the feeding section.
Jertberg teaches that when attempting to adjust a height of a piece of food-handling equipment, an actuator activated by a controller can successfully be used to adjust the height (Par. 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin in view of Wang by having the height-adjusting mechanical feet of the feeding section each comprise an actuator activated by a common controller that is configured to allow a user to adjust the vertical height of the feeding section, wherein a user uses the controller to adjust the vertical height of the feeding section. Motivation for using controller-controlled actuators was provided by Jertberg, who teaches that when attempting to adjust a height of a piece of food-handling equipment, an actuator activated by a controller can successfully be used to adjust the height.
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang does not teach using a controller to activate the feeding section.
Jertberg teaches that when attempting to adjust a height of a piece of food-handling equipment, an actuator activated by a controller can successfully be used to adjust the height (Par. 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin in view of Wang by having the height-adjusting mechanical feet of the feeding section each comprise an actuator activated by a common controller that is configured to allow a user to adjust the vertical height of the feeding section, wherein a user uses the controller to adjust the vertical height of the feeding section. Motivation for using controller-controlled actuators was provided by Jertberg, who teaches that when attempting to adjust a height of a piece of food-handling equipment, an actuator activated by a controller can successfully be used to adjust the height. In this combination of Zababakhin in view of Wang in view of Jertberg, the controller is structurally capable of activating vertical movement of the feeding section, and a cleaning mode is considered to be activated in such movement because such movement could contribute to dislodging material that had adhered to both the feeding section and the weighing section.
Claims 9, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2038768 by Zababakhin in view of JP2010012405 by Son.
With regard to claim 9, Zababakhin teaches an egg-processing apparatus, wherein the egg-processing apparatus includes a transport structure configured for supporting eggs along a transport direction (this “transport direction” being left-to-right when looking at Figure 4; Abstract; pages 4-5 of translation). Zababakhin’s transport structure comprises two neighboring section – a feeding section comprising ramp 10 in Figure 4 and a weighing section positioned above scale 12 in Figure 4 (pages 4-5 of translation). These two neighboring sections are separated by a slit such that the weighing of the egg occurs independently of ramp 10 (pages 4-5 of translation and Figure 4). Each of these two neighboring sections (the feeding section and the weighing section) are configured for directly supporting and guiding the eggs along the transport direction such that the eggs roll toward and along the weighing device (pages 4-5 of translation and Figure 4).
Zababakhin does not teach that the apparatus comprises a cleaning device configured to be moved into an out of said slit during a cleaning mode of the apparatus.
Son teaches that when trying to maintain the cleanliness to food-handling equipment, a nozzle for spraying dry ice can advantageously be inserted into narrow spaces such that cleaning can be performed (Abstract; pages 5-6 and 8-9 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to apparatus of Zababakhin such that the slit and a dry-ice spraying nozzle are both sized such that the nozzle can be inserted into said slit to perform cleaning thereof and removed from said slit when cleaning is complete. The apparatus of Zababakhin is egg-handling equipment, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Son, who teaches that when trying to maintain the cleanliness to food-handling equipment, a nozzle for spraying dry ice can advantageously be inserted into narrow spaces such that cleaning can be performed. The motivation for withdrawing the nozzle after cleaning is completed is simply that the nozzle no longer needs to be positioned in the slit once cleaning is completed and the nozzle could be used for cleaning elsewhere.
With regard to claim 21, in the combination of Zababakhin in view of Son, the feeding section comprises parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides 2 that define an egg guiding track along the transport direction (pages 4-5 of Zababakhin translation). The combination of Zababakhin in view of Son is silent about having parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides on the weighing section. However, since eggs also have to be moved onto and off the weighing section and since Zababakhin teaches that such parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides 2 provide surfaces along an egg can successfully be propelled (pages 4-5 of Zababakhin translation), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zababakhin in view of Son such that the top of the weighing section also comprises its own parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides for supporting and guiding movement of the eggs. In the combination of Zababakhin in view of Son, the egg needs to be supported and have its movement directed in the transport direction while on the weighing section, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Zababakhin, who teaches that parallel, spaced-apart rubber guides can successfully support and guide the movement of eggs on an apparatus section. In this combination of Zababakhin in view of Son, the slit is defined between two opposite edges of opposite guides of the two neighboring sections.
With regard to claim 23, in the combination of Zababakhin in view of Son, the apparatus effects transport of the eggs by gravity by having the eggs roll down ramp 10 (see Figure 4 of Zababakhin) such that the eggs roll (without a conveyor) from an initial vertical level over support surfaces of the neighboring sections of the transport structure to a second vertical level that is lower than said initial vertical level, and wherein the rolling eggs pass the weighing device (pages 4-5 of Zababakhin translation).
Claims 10, 11, and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2038768 by Zababakhin in view of JP2010012405 by Son.
With regard to claim 10, Zababakhin teaches an egg-processing method using an egg-processing apparatus, wherein the egg-processing apparatus includes a transport structure configured for supporting eggs along a transport direction (this “transport direction” being left-to-right when looking at Figure 4; Abstract; pages 4-5 of translation). Zababakhin’s transport structure comprises two neighboring section – a feeding section comprising ramp 10 in Figure 4 and a weighing section positioned above scale 12 in Figure 4 (pages 4-5 of translation). These two neighboring sections are separated by a slit such that the weighing of the egg occurs independently of ramp 10 (pages 4-5 of translation and Figure 4). Each of these two neighboring sections (the feeding section and the weighing section) are configured for directly supporting and guiding the eggs along the transport direction such that the eggs roll toward and along the weighing device (pages 4-5 of translation and Figure 4). In the method of Zababakhin, a number of eggs are guided on the transport structure and along said two neighboring sections such that each egg can be weighed by the weighing section (pages 4-5 of translation).
Zababakhin does not teach performing a slit cleaning step.
Son teaches that when trying to maintain the cleanliness to food-handling equipment, a nozzle for spraying dry ice can advantageously be inserted into narrow spaces such that cleaning can be performed (Abstract; pages 5-6 and 8-9 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zababakhin such that the slit and a dry-ice spraying nozzle are both sized such that the nozzle is inserted into said slit to perform cleaning thereof and removed from said slit when cleaning is complete. The apparatus used in the method of Zababakhin is egg-handling equipment, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Son, who teaches that when trying to maintain the cleanliness to food-handling equipment, a nozzle for spraying dry ice can advantageously be inserted into narrow spaces such that cleaning can be performed. The motivation for withdrawing the nozzle after cleaning is completed is simply that the nozzle no longer needs to be positioned in the slit once cleaning is completed and the nozzle could be used for cleaning elsewhere.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Zababakhin in view of Son does not teach that transport of the eggs is halted during cleaning. However, in the art of cleaning food-handling equipment, it is well-known that cleaning can successfully cleaned during downtime when the equipment is not being used to process food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zababakhin in view of Son by having the cleaning of the slit performed during downtime of the egg-processing equipment, wherein transport of eggs is halted during said downtime. In the art of cleaning food-handling equipment, it is well-known that cleaning can successfully cleaned during downtime when the equipment is not being used to process food, and motivation for performing the modification would be to avoid the possibility of accidentally contaminating an egg with sprayed dry ice.
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Zababakhin in view of Son does not teach that egg guiding on the transport structure is resumed after the cleaning step is performed. However, in the art of cleaning food-handling equipment, it is well-known that cleaning can successfully cleaned during downtime when the equipment is not being used to process food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zababakhin in view of Son by having the cleaning of the slit performed during downtime of the egg-processing equipment, wherein transport of eggs is halted during said downtime, and wherein transport of eggs is resumed sometime after the cleaning is performed. In the art of cleaning food-handling equipment, it is well-known that cleaning can successfully cleaned during downtime when the equipment is not being used to process food, and motivation for performing the modification would be to avoid the possibility of accidentally contaminating an egg with sprayed dry ice.
The combination of Zababakhin in view of Son does not teach that the step of cleaning in the slit is carried out within five seconds. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zababakhin in view of Son by optimizing the duration of the cleaning step, as the cleaning step must be performed for long enough to effectively perform cleaning while not taking so long that time is wasted, as it is well known in the art of cleaning to limit an amount of time that is devoted to a cleaning task so as not to waste time.
Claims 10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2038768 by Zababakhin in view of KR200357183 by Park.
With regard to claim 10, Zababakhin teaches an egg-processing method using an egg-processing apparatus, wherein the egg-processing apparatus includes a transport structure configured for supporting eggs along a transport direction (this “transport direction” being left-to-right when looking at Figure 4; Abstract; pages 4-5 of translation). Zababakhin’s transport structure comprises two neighboring section – a feeding section comprising ramp 10 in Figure 4 and a weighing section positioned above scale 12 in Figure 4 (pages 4-5 of translation). These two neighboring sections are separated by a slit such that the weighing of the egg occurs independently of ramp 10 (pages 4-5 of translation and Figure 4). Each of these two neighboring sections (the feeding section and the weighing section) are configured for directly supporting and guiding the eggs along the transport direction such that the eggs roll toward and along the weighing device (pages 4-5 of translation and Figure 4). In the method of Zababakhin, a number of eggs are guided on the transport structure and along said two neighboring sections such that each egg can be weighed by the weighing section (pages 4-5 of translation).
Zababakhin does not teach performing a slit cleaning step.
Park teaches a weight sensor for weighing an egg, wherein the weight sensor comprises a vertically-arranged spring (item 33 in Figure 2; Abstract; page 3 of translation and claim section of Park). In the art of using a spring to weigh something, it is well-known that the displacement of a spring by a weighed object can be used to measure said object’s weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zababakhin such that the weighing section comprises a vertically-arranged spring below the support surface of the weighing section used to support the egg (during weighing of an egg), wherein the vertically-arranged spring allows the vertical displacement of the support surface and the spring (by the weight of egg) to be measured. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Park, who teaches a weight sensor for weighing an egg, wherein the weight sensor comprises a vertically-arranged spring, and motivation was provided by the fact that in the art of using a spring to weigh something, it is well-known that the displacement of a spring by a weighed object can be used to measure said object’s weight. In this combination of Zababakhin in view of Park, the weighing of each egg can also be considered a cleaning step because the weight of the egg displaces (due to the spring) the support surface vertically downwards such that the weighing section moves relative to the feeding section and the displacement of the support surface is thus capable of dislodging material adhered to both the feeding section and the support surface of the weighing section.
With regard to claim 14, in the combination of Zababakhin in view of Park, the weighing an egg involves the iterative motion of the support surface (of the weighing section) due to the weight of the egg displacing the spring and the support surface.
With regard to claim 15, in the combination of Zababakhin in view of Park, the weighing an egg comprises moving the support surface (of the weighing section) only once due to the weight of the egg displacing the spring and the support surface.
With regard to claim 16, in the combination of Zababakhin in view of Park, transport of the weighed egg is resumed after the egg is weighed (page 5 of Zababakhin translation). The combination of Zababakhin in view of Park does not teach that the weighing of the egg is carried out within five seconds. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zababakhin in view of Park by optimizing the duration of the egg-weighing step, as the egg-weighing step needs to take long enough in order to effectively weight the egg while not being so long that time is wasted and the movement of eggs (through the apparatus) is unnecessarily delayed, as it is well known in the conveying art to optimize the speed at which products are conveyed by a conveyance system so as to convey items without wasting time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714