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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-18 filed on 10/10/2024 are pending in the application.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (CN219422086U) in view of Zhang et al. (CN219223140U) and further in view of Liu et al. (CN213599703U).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a multilayer tea-fermentation apparatus comprising a tank body, vertically arranged fermentation boxes, and associated supporting and stirring structures. The applicant’s specification identifies deficiencies in Liang, including restricted gas circulation between layers and the complexity of providing individual stirring mechanisms.
Liang does not disclose the claimed telescopically driven motor-driven turnover assembly.
Zhang discloses a multilayer tea-processing apparatus (see Fig 1-5) comprising drying drawers (14), telescopic brackets (19), crossed connecting strips (29), an electric telescopic rod (25), a driving motor (12), and a top cover (13).
Zhang teaches adjusting the spacing between the drawers, bringing them together, and rotating the multilayer assembly to redistribute tea leaves. Zhang further provides a bottom net (18) for the drawers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Zhang’s telescopically adjustable turnover assembly into Liang’s fermentation apparatus to facilitate redistribution of tea leaves , reduce reliance on individual stirring mechanisms, and promote more uniform fermentation.
Providing a central turnover plate supporting upper and lower groups of processing layers would have been a predictable mechanical arrangement for transmitting rotational force, distributing loading about the rotational axis, and accommodating multiple processing layers. The particular arrangement could have been selected to achieve rotational stability and efficient use of the fermentation chamber.
Liu discloses providing air holes in multilayer tea-processing plates to permit airflow through successive processing layers.
It would have been obvious to provide gas holes in the turnover plate, laminates, trays and top cover where those components would otherwise obstruct the intended gas-flow path. This modification would facilitate oxygen circulation throughout the multilayer fermentation assembly and reduce the airflow restrictions associated with the apparatus in Liang.
Providing placement grooves and positioning members for the trays would further permit repeatable tray positioning and convenient loading and unloading while maintaining tray alignment during operation.
The proposed combination would have predictably improved tea leaves redistribution, gas circulation and fermentation uniformity, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses a motor-driven rotating multilayer assembly. Providing opposed support shafts connected to supporting box bodies, with the motor housed in one box body, would have been an obvious arrangement for transmitting torque, maintaining rotational alignment, and supporting the assembly between box bodies.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses telescopic brackets (19) on opposing sides of the drying drawers. Providing two telescopic connection mechanisms on opposite sides of the support frame would have been obvious to distribute loading and maintain alignment during expansion and contraction.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses crossed connecting strips (29) , expansion brackets (20) and connecting shafts (28,30). Employing successive crossed and hinged connecting rod groups would have provided coordinated telescopic movement. Using a driving member to adjust and hold the included angle would have been a predictable means of controlling layer spacing.
Regarding claim 5, providing sliders at the movable ends of the connecting rods and corresponding chutes in the adjacent structural members would have been an obvious mechanical implementation for accommodating linkage movement, constraining travel, and reducing binding during expansion and contraction.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the driving member is an electric telescopic rod (25), having a main body fixed to a side wall of the turnover plate and the slider in sliding connection with the turnover plate is fixed to the electric telescopic rod of the driving member, for actuating its adjustable multilayer assembly. Mounting the actuator to the turnover plate and coupling it to the associated slider would have been an obvious arrangement for transmitting the actuator’s linear motion to the telescopic linkage.
Regarding claim 7, providing cooperating magnets and iron sheets between the placement grooves and trays would have been an obvious removable positioning arrangement to facilitate tray installation, maintain alignment , and resist unintended displacement during operation. Embedding the respective members in the contacting surfaces would have provided a compact arrangement without substantially interfering with tray placement.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses a top cover (13) for retaining tea leaves during turnover. Providing a square groove on the underside of the cover would have been an obvious configuration for accommodating corresponding tray geometry , providing clearance, and facilitating positioning of the cover during compression and inversion.
The square geometry would have been a predictable selection based on the geometry of the cooperating components.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses crossed connecting members forming a telescopic mechanism. Providing an elastic sheet between the connecting rods would have been an obvious means of introducing a resilient restoring force, accommodating relative movement , and assisting controlled operation of the linkage during processing.
Regarding claim 10, Liang discloses multilayer tea fermentation, while Zhang teaches telescopic adjustment and motor-driven turnover of multiple tea-containing drawers. It would have been obvious to apply Zhang’s turnover operation during fermentation in Liang, to redistribute tea leaves and improve fermentation uniformity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Bringing the processing layers into contact before inversion would help retain the tea leaves during rotation. Rotating the assembly through 180 degrees would exchange the vertical positions of the tea-containing layers, and separating the layers afterward would restore spacing for gas circulation and continued fermentation.
Regarding claim 11, the opposed support shafts, supporting box bodies , and motor arrangement would have been obvious for the same reasons as claim 2, namely stable rotational support and effective torque transmission.
Regarding claim 12, the two telescopic connection mechanisms would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in claim 3, namely balanced support and coordinated movement of the multilayer assembly.
Regarding claim 14, the slider and chute connections would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in claim 5, namely guided linkage movement and accommodation of changing linkage geometry.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang’s telescopic rod would have suggested the claimed powered driving arrangement for automated and controlled movement of the telescopic mechanism.
Regarding claim 16, the magnet and iron sheet positioning arrangement would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in claim 7, namely retention and repeatable alignment of trays.
Regarding claim 17, the square groove in the underside of the top cover would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in claim 8, namely clearance and positioning of the cooperating components during compression and turnover.
Regarding claim 18, the elastic sheet between the connecting rods would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in claim 9, namely providing a resilient biasing or restoring force during telescopic movement.
Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Liang’s multilayer tea-fermentation apparatus using Zhang’s telescopic turnover mechanism to improve redistribution of tea leaves while reducing the complexity of individual stirring arrangements.
Liu’s perforated tea-processing structures would further suggest providing gas passages through the multilayer assembly to improve oxygen circulation during fermentation.
The remaining mechanical configurations would have been selected to accommodate the expected requirements of rotational support , controlled movement, tray positioning, clearance and resilient operation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-18 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
