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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted o is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “separator” amended into line 14 of claim 1 should read “separation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last word of the claim, “configured” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “the” should be added before “driving rod” and the word “ram” should be deleted. 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 19, 22 and 29 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 19 recites the limitation "the driving ram" in the 2nd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the driving ram" in the 2nd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the driving ram" in the 2nd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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 1, 8, 10-13, 16-17, 19-25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2,930,314 to Carlson, hereinafter “Carlson”.
Regarding claim 1, Carlson discloses a separation machine (separation machine juice extractor shown in Figs. 1 and 2; col. 1, line 41-47) comprising:
a housing (housing heads 5 and 6 in Fig. 1; col. 1, line 48-56);
a separation chamber mounted to the housing, the separation chamber configured to receive and process a food product therethrough (separation chamber frame 31 with screen 30 in Fig. 1; col., 2, line 17-42);
a feed tube configured to provide the food product to an input end of the separation chamber (feed tube hopper 11 in Fig. 1; col. 1, line 58);
a rotating auger disposed within the separation chamber (auger screw 20 in Fig. 1; col. 1, line 68 through col. 2, line 16), wherein an annular space and a volume are defined between the auger and the separation chamber (annular space round opening 32, opening 33 with bevel 34, and annular opening 35 in Fig. 1; col. 2, line 28-42);
a restrictor ring valve mounted at an output end of the separation chamber (restrictor ring valve end shaft 21 with bevel 28 in Fig. 1), the restrictor ring valve configured to be linearly and reciprocally displaceable, wherein linear displacement of the restrictor ring valve varies a size of the volume defined between the auger and the separation chamber (restrictor ring valve end shaft 21 with bevel 28 is configured to be linearly and reciprocally displaceable to vary the size of the volume as disclosed at col. 2, line 47-57);
a driven reciprocating driving rod (driving piston rod 70 in Fig. 1; col. 3, line 26-34); and
a pivoting adjustment bracket coupled between the driving rod and the restrictor ring valve (pivoting adjustment bracket lever 66 in Fig. 1; col. 3, line 16-28), and
wherein extension of the driving rod causes pivoting movement of the adjustment bracket so as to linearly translate the restrictor ring valve in a first direction to reduce the size of the volume (extension of piston rod 70 in Fig. 1 causes pivoting movement of bracket lever 66 which linearly translates valve 21 to the right in the figure which reduces the size of the volume of annular opening 35), and wherein retraction of the driving rod causes pivoting movement of the adjustment bracket to linearly translate the restrictor ring valve in a second direction so as to increase the size of the volume (retraction of piston rod 70 in Fig. 1 causes pivoting movement of bracket lever 66 which linearly translates valve 21 to the left in the figure which increases the size of the volume of annular opening 35).
Regarding claim 8, Carlson anticipates the separation machine of claim 1 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the driving rod reciprocally extends and retracts in a horizontal direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the separation chamber (piston rod 70 in Fig. 1 extends and retracts parallel with axis of chamber 30/31 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Carlson anticipates the separation machine of claim 1 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the driving rod is disposed externally relative to the housing and external relative to the separation chamber (piston rod 70 in Fig. 1 is disposed external relative to housing heads 5 and 6 and chamber 30/31).
Regarding claim 11, Carlson anticipates the separation machine of claim 1 as explained above. Carlson further discloses including an external pressure gauge operatively coupled to the driving rod (external pressure gage 84 in Fig. 1 is operatively couple to piston rod 70; col. 3, line 26-50).
Regarding claim 12, Carlson anticipates the separation machine of claim 1 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the pivoting adjustment bracket (pivoting adjustment bracket lever 66 in Fig. 1) is operatively coupled to the driving rod at a first end (lever 66 is coupled to piston rod 70 at its lower end in Fig. 1), and operatively coupled to the restrictor ring valve at a second end (the upper end of lever 66 in Fig. 1 is couple to valve shaft end 21), the second end disposed opposite the first end, the pivoting adjustment bracket further including a fulcrum point (fulcrum point pivot 68 in Fig. 1; col. 3, line 18-20) between the first and second ends about which the adjustment bracket pivots (the lower and upper ends of lever 66 pivot about pivot 68 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Carlson anticipates the separation machine of claim 12 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the fulcrum point (68 in Fig. 1) is located at a position closer to the second end of the adjustment bracket (upper end of lever 66 in Fig. 1) than to the first end of the adjustment bracket (lower end of lever 66 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Carlson discloses an assembly (juice extractor assembly shown in Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
a separation chamber configured to receive and process a food product therethrough (separation chamber frame 31 with screen 30 in Fig. 1; col., 2, line 17-42);
a rotating auger disposed within the separation chamber (auger screw 20 in Fig. 1; col. 1, line 68 through col. 2, line 16), wherein an annular space and a volume are defined between the auger and the separation chamber (annular space round opening 32, opening 33 with bevel 34, and annular opening 35 in Fig. 1; col. 2, line 28-42);
a restrictor ring valve mounted at an output end of the separation chamber (restrictor ring valve end shaft 21 with bevel 28 in Fig. 1), the restrictor ring valve configured to be linearly and reciprocally displaceable, wherein linear displacement of the restrictor ring valve varies a size of the volume defined between the auger and the separation chamber (restrictor ring valve end shaft 21 with bevel 28 is configured to be linearly and reciprocally displaceable to vary the size of the volume as disclosed at col. 2, line 47-57); and
a driven reciprocating driving rod (driving piston rod 70 in Fig. 1; col. 3, line 26-34), and
wherein extension of the driving rod causes pivoting movement of the restrictor ring valve in a first direction to reduce the size of the volume (extension of piston rod 70 in Fig. 1 causes pivoting movement of bracket lever 66 which linearly translates valve 21 to the right in the figure which reduces the size of the volume of annular opening 35), and wherein retraction of the driving rod causes movement of the restrictor ring valve in a second direction so as to increase the size of the volume (retraction of piston rod 70 in Fig. 1 causes pivoting movement of bracket lever 66 which linearly translates valve 21 to the left in the figure which increases the size of the volume of annular opening 35).
Regarding claim 17, Carlson anticipates the assembly of claim 16 as explained above. Carlson further discloses a pivoting adjustment bracket (pivoting adjustment bracket lever 66 in Fig. 1; col. 3, line 16-28) coupled between the driving rod (piston rod 20 in Fig. 1) and the restrictor ring valve (valve end shaft 21 with bevel 28 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Carlson anticipates the separation machine of claim 1 as explained above. Carlson further discloses a controller (controller valve 82 in Fig. 1) operatively coupled to the driving rod to control movement of the driving rod (col. 3, line 43-50).
Regarding claim 20, Carlson anticipates the separation machine of claim 12 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the second end of the pivoting adjustment bracket (second upper end of pivoting adjustment bracket lever 66 in Fig. 1) includes pins which seat within pockets of the restrictor ring valve (the upper end of lever 66 in Fig. 1 terminates in pins which seat within pockets made between rounded abutments 65 and end ring 53 on end shaft 21), the pins sliding within the pockets during movement of the restrictor ring valve (the upper pin ends of lever 66 slide left and right in a clockwise and counter-clockwise movement when restrictor ring valve shaft end 21 is moved).
Regarding claim 21, Carlson anticipates the separation machine of claim 20 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the fulcrum is provided by a pair of pins of the adjustment bracket coupled to the separation chamber. Column 3, line 16-25 discloses the upper end of lever 66 is bifurcated such that each upper end pin portion of lever 66 has a pivot pin 68.
Regarding claim 22, Carlson anticipates the assembly of claim 16 as explained above. Carlson further discloses a controller (controller valve 82 in Fig. 1) operatively coupled to the driving rod to control movement of the driving rod (col. 3, line 43-50).
Regarding claim 23, Carlson anticipates the assembly of claim 17 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the driving rod reciprocally extends and retracts in a horizontal direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the separation chamber (piston rod 70 in Fig. 1 extends and retracts parallel with axis of chamber 30/31 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Carlson anticipates the assembly of claim 23 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the pivoting adjustment bracket (pivoting adjustment bracket lever 66 in Fig. 1) is operatively coupled to the driving rod at a first end (lever 66 is coupled to piston rod 70 at its lower end in Fig. 1), and operatively coupled to the restrictor ring valve at a second end (the upper end of lever 66 in Fig. 1 is couple to valve shaft end 21), the second end disposed opposite the first end, the pivoting adjustment bracket further including a fulcrum point (fulcrum point pivot 68 in Fig. 1; col. 3, line 18-20) between the first and second ends about which the adjustment bracket pivots (the lower and upper ends of lever 66 pivot about pivot 68 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Carlson anticipates the assembly of claim 24 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the fulcrum point (68 in Fig. 1) is located at a position closer to the second end of the adjustment bracket (upper end of lever 66 in Fig. 1) than to the first end of the adjustment bracket (lower end of lever 66 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, Carlson anticipates the assembly of claim 24 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the second end of the pivoting adjustment bracket (second upper end of pivoting adjustment bracket lever 66 in Fig. 1) includes pins which seat within pockets of the restrictor ring valve (the upper end of lever 66 in Fig. 1 terminates in pins which seat within pockets made between rounded abutments 65 and end ring 53 on end shaft 21), the pins sliding within the pockets during movement of the restrictor ring valve (the upper pin ends of lever 66 slide left and right in a clockwise and counter-clockwise movement when restrictor ring valve shaft end 21 is moved).
Regarding claim 28, Carlson anticipates the assembly of claim 27 as explained above. Carlson further discloses the fulcrum is provided by a pair of pins of the adjustment bracket coupled to the separation chamber. Column 3, line 16-25 discloses the upper end of lever 66 is bifurcated such that each upper end pin portion of lever 66 has a pivot pin 68.
Regarding claim 29, Carlson anticipates the assembly of claim 24 as explained above. Carlson further discloses a controller (controller valve 82 in Fig. 1) operatively coupled to the driving rod to control movement of the driving rod (col. 3, line 43-50).
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.
Claims 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of U.S. Patent No. 1,151,186 to Johnson, hereinafter “Johnson”.
Regarding claim 14, Carlson anticipates the separation machine of claim 12 as explained above. However, Carlson does not disclose, from claim 14: a distance from the fulcrum point to the first end of the adjustment bracket is about twice the distance compared to a distance from the fulcrum point to the second end of the adjustment bracket, so as to provide a mechanical force advantage of about 3:1.
In the same field of separation machines, Johnson teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a distance from the fulcrum point (at 44 in Fig. 1) to the first end of the adjustment bracket (the left end of lever 45 in Fig. 1) about twice the distance as compared to a distance from the fulcrum point to the second end of the adjustment bracket (the right end of lever 45 in Fig. 1) to provide a mechanical force advantage.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position Carlson’s fulcrum point pivot 68 further away from the lower end of lever 66 to provide a greater mechanical force advantage in the same way Johnson teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Johnson to Carlson’s separation machine would achieve the predictable result of adjusting the position of Carlson’s fulcrum point to increase the mechanical force advantage.
Regarding claim 26, Carlson anticipates the assembly of claim 24 as explained above. However, Carlson does not disclose, from claim 26: a distance from the fulcrum point to the first end of the adjustment bracket is about twice the distance compared to a distance from the fulcrum point to the second end of the adjustment bracket, so as to provide a mechanical force advantage of about 3:1.
In the same field of separation machines, Johnson teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a distance from the fulcrum point (at 44 in Fig. 1) to the first end of the adjustment bracket (the left end of lever 45 in Fig. 1) about twice the distance as compared to a distance from the fulcrum point to the second end of the adjustment bracket (the right end of lever 45 in Fig. 1) to provide a mechanical force advantage.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position Carlson’s fulcrum point pivot 68 further away from the lower end of lever 66 to provide a greater mechanical force advantage in the same way Johnson teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Johnson to Carlson’s separation machine would achieve the predictable result of adjusting the position of Carlson’s fulcrum point to increase the mechanical force advantage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights