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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, 16 recite “rotating the probe between a first position… and a second position”. This concept of “rotation” does not appear to be disclosed in the application.
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 1, 3-8, 11-20 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.
Claims 1, 8, 16 recite “rotating the probe between a first position… and a second position”. It is not clear if the claims literally require rotation/spinning/turning of the probe, or whether they simply require moving the probe from one position to another.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi et al (WO) [WO 2014/188351A1], in view of Bischel [US 2017/0057805A1], Cocchi et al [US 2012/0251697A1], and D’Agostino [US 2015/0335042A1].
Cocchi et al (WO) teach a machine and method for making and dispensing liquid, semi-liquid and/or semi-solid food products (title) by providing a product storage portion (Figure 1, #19), a freezing cylinder (Figure 1, #2), heating and cooling means wrapped around the cylinder (Figure 1, #3-4), a dispensing portion (Figure 1, #11, 13), a product delivery line connecting the product storage portion to the freezing cylinder (Figure 1, #10), a recirculation line connecting the dispensing portion to the product delivery line (Figure 1, #12, 18), an ice cream storage temperature of around 4C (page 9, line 17), optionally storing the product storage portion within a refrigerator (page 13, line 18), a heat treatment circuit including the freezing cylinder, dispensing portion, recirculation line, and product delivery line (Figure 1, #2, 13, 12, 10; page 8, lines 19-21), disconnecting the product storage portion from the freezing cylinder and then connecting the recirculation line to the product delivery line to enable pasteurization of a recirculating 2nd volume of product (Figure 1; page 14, lines 4-10), reconnecting the product storage portion to the freezing cylinder for dispensing operations after pasteurization (page 7, lines 18-20), the pump housing acting as a port to connect the product delivery line and recirculation line (Figure 1, #15, 10, 12), and the heat pasteurization including a first time for raising the temperature, a second time for holding the temperature, and a third time for cooling the product (page 8, lines 19-24; page 9, lines 8-18).
Cocchi et al do not explicitly recite a refrigerated storage compartment within the machine (claim 1, 8), the product delivery line having a probe and the product storage portion having a fitment (claim 1, 8), connecting the probe to either the fitment or recirculation line (claim 1, 8), a changeover valve in the product delivery line (claim 3, 14), disconnecting the probe from the fitment (claim 4), a one-way valve in the probe (claim 11), and self-closing seal in the fitment(claim 12).
Bischel teaches an ice cream dispensing system (paragraph 0047) comprising a product storage portion with a fitment (Figure 6, #126; Figure 3, #128), a product delivery line including a probe which connects to the fitment of the product storge portion, a changeover valve, and a one-way valve preventing backflow (Figure3, 6; #129, 22, 328), the product delivery line connecting the product storage portion to the freezer cylinder and dispensing portion (Figure 3, 6; #154, 122), the product storage portion located within a compartment (Figure 3, #126, 302), and the product storage compartment being refrigerated (paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed refrigerated compartment into the invention of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel, since both are directed to ice cream dispensing systems, since Cocchi et al (WO) already disclosed storing the product storage portion in a refrigerator, or refrigerated cabinet, to maintain a suitable temperature (page 13, line 18) but simply did not mention whether the storage compartment of the device was also refrigerated, since ice cream systems commonly included the product storage portion located within a compartment (Figure 3, #126, 302) and the product storage compartment being refrigerated (paragraph 0062) as shown by Bischel, since a refrigerated storage compartment would have enabled better preservation and higher product quality in the system of Cocchi et al (WO), since a refrigerated compartment would have eliminated the need for a separate refrigerator device and the repeated movement of the product storage portion of Cocchi et al (WO), and since the claimed refrigerated compartment would have effectively prevented pathogen growth and potentially contaminating the product of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel.
Cocchi et al (‘697) teach an ice cream system comprising a product storage portion in the form of a bag-in-box with a fitment (Figure 1, #8-9), a freezing portion (Figure 1, #4), a dispensing portion (Figure 1, #6), a product delivery line (Figure 1, #10b-c), and a probe which is disconnected from the fitment of the product storage portion (Figure 1, #10a, 12).
Bischel also disclosed a product delivery line including a probe which connects to the fitment of the product storge portion, an isolation valve, and a one-way valve preventing backflow (Figure 3, 6; #129, 22, 328).
In general, the system of Cocchi et al (WO) differs from the claimed system by using separate ducts originating from the recirculation line and storage portion (Figure 2, #10, 18, 15, 20) as compared to a product delivery line with a probe which can connect to either the storage portion or the recirculation line (Figure 3, #32 of applicant). The mode of operation (ie using a closed recirculation system for pasteurization, or an open system for dispensing) are nearly the same in both systems. Applicant has failed to provide any evidence of unexpected or unpredicted results which would be attributed to the claimed duct/probe configuration.
Below are illustrated the simple modifications necessary (ie add a fitment on a recirculation line and product storage, add a probe on the product delivery line, and removal of suction duct #20) to convert the system of Cocchi et al (WO) into the claimed system:
PNG
media_image1.png
995
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed probe with one-way valve, fitment, port, and changeover valve into the invention of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Cocchi et al (‘697) and Bischel, since all are directed to ice cream dispensing systems, since Cocchi et al (WO) already included a product delivery line (Figure 2, #10) which was alternately connected to either the recirculation line (Figure 2, #18) or the product storage portion (Figure 2, #19); since Cocchi et al (WO) also disclosed an embodiment which included an on/off valve in the heat treatment circuit (Figure 2, #23), since ice cream systems commonly included a product delivery line with a probe capable of being disconnected from the fitment of the product storage portion (Figure 1, #10a, 12) as shown by Cocchi et al (‘697), since the substitution of one known element (ie a removable probe) for another (ie a removable line) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, since a removable and reusable probe would have enabled connection of the system of Cocchi et al (WO) to different flavors and/or containers of ice cream mix without the need for manufacturing a separate connecting line for each and every container of ice cream mix, since ice cream dispensing systems commonly included a changeover valve and one-way valve in the product delivery line (Figure 3 & 6, #22, 328) as shown by Bischel, since changeover valves permitted easy switchover from one product storage portion to another when one became empty as shown by Bischel (Figure 6, #126, 124), since a changeover valve in the modified product delivery line of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Cocchi et al (‘697) and Bischel, would have ensured withdrawal of ice cream from only one product storage portion at a time, and since a one-way valve in the probe of the modified system of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel and Cocchi et al (‘697), would have effectively prevented backflow of ice cream out of the probe and potentially causing contamination of the product storage portion.
D’Agostino teaches a method and apparatus for dispensing frozen confections comprising a product storage portion in the form of a “bag-in-bottle” (Figure 1, #3; paragraph 0024), the bag including a fitment comprising a self-closing valve of resilient material (paragraph 0026), and a refrigerated storage compartment (Figure 1, #2, 8).
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed self-closing seal and fitment into the invention of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Cocchi et al (‘697), Bischel, and D’Agostino; since all are directed to ice cream systems, since Cocchi et al (WO) already disclosed a product storage portion which was disconnected from the product delivery line (Figure 1, #10, 19-20), since Cocchi et al (‘697) already included a probe which was disconnected from the fitment of the product storage portion (Figure 1, #10a, 12), since ice cream systems commonly included a product storage portion with a fitment having a self-closing valve of resilient material (paragraph 0026) as shown by D’Agostino, and since the claimed fitment and seal would have effectively prevented the recirculating ice cream of Cocchi et al (WO) from back-flowing into the storage portion, prevented pathogen growth, and/or prevented outside contaminants from entering the system and potentially contaminating the product.
In conclusion, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 13, 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel, Coochi et al (’697), D’Agostino, as applied above, and further in view of Togashi et al [US 4,703,628].
Cocchi et al (WO), Bischel, Cocchi et al (‘697), and D’Agostino teach the above mentioned concepts.
Cocchi et al (WO) does not explicitly recite a conductive heater contacting the freezing cylinder (claim 13).
Togashi et al teach an apparatus for preparing frozen products comprising a freezing cylinder (Figure 4, #5), a heat exchanger surrounding the freezing cylinder (Figure 4, #31), a conductive heater contacting the heat exchanger (Figure 4, #101), a voltage source with electrical leads to the conductive heater (Figure 12, #101), and the conductive heater and heat exchanger providing a heat sterilization cycle for the ice cream in the cylinder (column 18, lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed conductive heater features into the invention of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Togashi et al, since both are directed to ice cream systems, since Cocchi et al (WO) already included a freezing cylinder surrounded by a heat exchanger providing both heating and cooling (Figure 1, #2-5) but simply did not describe what the heat source was for the heat exchange fluid, since ice cream sterilization and freezing systems commonly used a heat exchanger surrounded by a conductive heater element (Figure 3, #5, 31, 101) as shown by Togashi et al, and since using the a heat exchanger in combination with a conductive heater would have provided improved heating and cooling performance in the invention of Cocchi et al (WO).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel, Coochi et al (’697), D’Agostino; as applied above, and further in view of Black [US 2017/0042178A1].
Cocchi et al (WO), Bischel, Coochi et al (’697), D’Agostino teach the above mentioned concepts. Cocchi et al (WO) also disclosed a bag (page 5, line 13). Cocchi et al (WO) do not explicitly recite a switch to detect flow (claim 19).
Black teaches a system for making frozen products comprising a product delivery line with an ingredient sensor or flowmeter to detect and measure flow of ingredients (paragraph 0049; Figure 2, #206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed switch into the invention of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel and Black; since all are directed to frozen food systems, since Cocchi et al (WO) already included a controller with a sensor for detecting connection of the removable container in the storage portion (page 11, line 9-15; Figure 4, #35), since frozen food systems commonly included an ingredient sensor or flowmeter to detect and measure flow of ingredients (paragraph 0049; Figure 2, #206) as shown by Black, since the claimed switch would have provided an efficient and effective means for determining when the system of Cocchi et al (WO) was in operation and pumping ingredients into the freezer, and since an automated detection system would have helped prevent spills and wastage of materials.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel, Cocchi et al (‘697), Togashi, D’Agostino, as applied above, and further in view of Cocchi et al [US 2007/0114228A1].
Cocchi et al (WO), Bischel, Cocchi et al (‘697), Togashi, D’Agostino teach the above mentioned concepts. Cocchi et al (WO) do not explicitly recite the conductive heater located at a supply line or return line (claim 18). Cocchi et al (‘228) teaches an ice cream system with a freezing cylinder (Figure 4, #32) and a heater located along a return line (Figure 4, #20, 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed heater location into the invention of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Cocchi et al (‘228), since both are directed to ice cream systems, since Cocchi et al (WO) already included a heating and cooling means wrapped around the cylinder, since Togashi already disclosed a conductive heater contacting the heat exchanger (Figure 4, #101), since ice cream systems commonly included a heater located along a return line (Figure 4, #20, 37) as shown by Cocchi et al (‘228), and since placing the heater along a return line would have provided easier acces for repair and replacement in the system of Cocchi et al (WO) in view of Cocchi et al (‘228).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel, Cocchi et al (‘697), Togashi, and D’Agostino, as applied above, and further in view of Black [US 2017/0042178A1].
Cocchi et al (WO), Bischel, Cocchi et al (‘697), Togashi, and D’Agostino teach the above mentioned concepts. Cocchi et al (WO) do not explicitly recite a switch to detect flow (claim 19).
Black teaches a system for making frozen products comprising a product delivery line with an ingredient sensor or flowmeter to detect and measure flow of ingredients (paragraph 0049; Figure 2, #206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed switch into the invention of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel, Cocchi et al, Togashi, D’Agostino, and Black; since all are directed to frozen food systems, since Cocchi et al (WO) already included a controller with a sensor for detecting connection of the removable container in the storage portion (page 11, line 9-15; Figure 4, #35), since frozen food systems commonly included an ingredient sensor or flowmeter to detect and measure flow of ingredients (paragraph 0049; Figure 2, #206) as shown by Black, since the claimed switch would have provided an efficient and effective means for determining when the system of Cocchi et al (WO) was in operation and pumping ingredients into the freezer, and since an automated detection system would have helped prevent spills and wastage of materials.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-20 (particularly claim 1) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-27, 29 (particularly claim 17) of copending Application No. 18/111,727 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of present claim 1 are also present in claim 17 of ‘727.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the individual references disclose a probe that rotates between the fitment and recirculation line. However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed probe with one-way valve, fitment, port, and changeover valve into the invention of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Cocchi et al (‘697) and Bischel, since all are directed to ice cream dispensing systems, since Cocchi et al (WO) already included a product delivery line (Figure 2, #10) which was alternately connected to either the recirculation line (Figure 2, #18) or the product storage portion (Figure 2, #19); since Cocchi et al (WO) also disclosed an embodiment which included an on/off valve in the heat treatment circuit (Figure 2, #23), since ice cream systems commonly included a product delivery line with a probe capable of being disconnected from the fitment of the product storage portion (Figure 1, #10a, 12) as shown by Cocchi et al (‘697), since the substitution of one known element (ie a removable probe) for another (ie a removable line) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, since a removable and reusable probe would have enabled connection of the system of Cocchi et al (WO) to different flavors and/or containers of ice cream mix without the need for manufacturing a separate connecting line for each and every container of ice cream mix, since ice cream dispensing systems commonly included a changeover valve and one-way valve in the product delivery line (Figure 3 & 6, #22, 328) as shown by Bischel, since changeover valves permitted easy switchover from one product storage portion to another when one became empty as shown by Bischel (Figure 6, #126, 124), since a changeover valve in the modified product delivery line of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Cocchi et al (‘697) and Bischel, would have ensured withdrawal of ice cream from only one product storage portion at a time, and since a one-way valve in the probe of the modified system of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Bischel and Cocchi et al (‘697), would have effectively prevented backflow of ice cream out of the probe and potentially causing contamination of the product storage portion.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed self-closing seal and fitment into the invention of Cocchi et al (WO), in view of Cocchi et al (‘697), Bischel, and D’Agostino; since all are directed to ice cream systems, since Cocchi et al (WO) already disclosed a product storage portion which was disconnected from the product delivery line (Figure 1, #10, 19-20), since Cocchi et al (‘697) already included a probe which was disconnected from the fitment of the product storage portion (Figure 1, #10a, 12), since ice cream systems commonly included a product storage portion with a fitment having a self-closing valve of resilient material (paragraph 0026) as shown by D’Agostino, and since the claimed fitment and seal would have effectively prevented the recirculating ice cream of Cocchi et al (WO) from back-flowing into the storage portion, prevented pathogen growth, and/or prevented outside contaminants from entering the system and potentially contaminating the product.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng teaches a food dispensing system comprising a storage portion with a fitment and a product delivery line with a probe (Figure 2, #1, 4, 21-23).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights