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 Claims
This is the first action on the merits of application 19/269,004 filed on July 14, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0083], it appears the phrase “fees channel 32” should --feed channel 32--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The “feed driver” as described in claim 14.
The “second driver”, “agitating blade”, and “output shaft” as described in claim 17.
The “output shaft” and “rotational bearing” as described in claim 19.
The “output shaft”, “rotational bearing”, and “wherein the third driver and the first gear are mounted on the rotating base, while the rotation shaft and the second gear are mounted on the fixed base” as described in claim 20.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "334" and "3334" have both been used to designate “connecting pin” in paragraph [0069].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “40” and “50” in at least paragraph [0061].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “92” and “93” in Fig. 9a.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to because Figures 2 and 3 appear to be identical.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-7, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “wherein other end” to --wherein an other end-- or --the other end--.
In claim 1, line 8, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the food” to –food-- as “food” has not been previously introduced in the claims.
In claim 4, the claim appears to be split into multiple sentences with periods separating said sentences. Applicant is suggested to phrase the claim as a single sentence, beginning with a capital letter and ending with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
In claim 5, line 4, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “with side wall” to --with a side wall--.
In claim 5, lines 4-5, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “of side wall” to --of the side wall--.
In claim 6, line 2, Applicant is suggested to remove the phrase “in some embodiments of the present application”.
In claim 6, line 4, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “wherein ram rod” to --wherein the ram rod--.
In claim 7, line 2, Applicant is suggested to remove the phrase “in some embodiments of the present application”.
In claim 18, lines 3-4, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the feeding device, pneumatic ejection device, cleaning device, and ejection channel” to --the feeding device, the pneumatic ejection device, the cleaning device, and the ejection channel--.
In claim 20, lines 13-14, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the feeding device, pneumatic ejection device, and cleaning device” to --the feeding device, the pneumatic ejection device, and the cleaning device--.
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 3-9 and 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.
Claim 3, line 8 recites the limitation “the cleaning channel has a second air supply conduit…”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the cleaning channel” in the claims. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “cleaning device” (claim 1), to the previously recited “ejection channel” (claim 1), or to another element altogether. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 3.
Claim 3, lines 10-11 recites the limitation “…the other end of the second air supply conduit is communicated with the outlet; wherein the outlet is located on the ejection channel…”. However, both “an outlet” of the air chamber and an “an outlet” of the second air supply conduit have been previously introduced in claim 3. Therefore, it is unclear as to which “outlet” the limitations of claim 3, lines 10-11 refers, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
Claim 4, lines 1-6, recites the limitation “wherein after the pneumatic push rod ejects the food and before the ejection channel is cleaned by the cleaning device, the air pressure within the air chamber remains above atmospheric pressure. The cleaning device then utilizes…”. However, this limitation appears to read as a step of a method and not as a descriptor of an apparatus. Since the limitation appears to combine elements of an apparatus with elements of a method, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 4, lines 8-9, recites the limitation wherein “The time delay between opening the first air supply pipeline and second air supply pipeline is…”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the elements “the first air supply pipeline and second air supply pipeline” in the claims. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “first air supply conduit” and “second air supply conduit” (claim 3) or to another element. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 6, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “wherein the pneumatic push rod…comprises…”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the pneumatic push rod” in the claims. Although a “pneumatic push rod” is introduced in claim 2, claim 6 is not dependent upon claim 2. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. The Examiner notes further use of the term “the pneumatic push rod” without proper antecedent basis in claim 7 (lines 1-2) and claim 13 (lines 3-4). Claims 7-9 and 13 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 6.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “a compression spring installed inside the cylinder”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the cylinder” in the claims. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “cylinder body” (claim 6) or to another element. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 6, lines 6-7, recites the limitation “…the other end of the rod body extends out of the cylinder body and is fixedly connected to the top plate”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the top plate” in the claims. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “ram plate” (claim 6) or to another element. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. The Examiner notes further use of the term “the top plate” without proper antecedent basis in claim 6 (lines 12 and 13) and claim 9 (line 1).
Claim 6, lines 9-10, recites the limitation “together with the end of the cylinder body opposite the ram rod and the side wall of the cylinder body”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the side wall of the cylinder body” in the claims. It is unclear as to which wall of the cylinder body “the side wall” refers, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
Claim 6, lines 12-13, recites the limitation “wherein the top plate is positioned at the first end surface of the ejection passage, and the shape and area of the top plate are identical to those of the first end surface”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the first end surface” in the claims. Although a “first end surface” is introduced in claim 5, claim 6 is not dependent upon claim 5. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. The Examiner notes further use of the term “the first end surface” without proper antecedent basis in claim 6 (lines 12 and 13), claim 8 (line 2), and claim 9 (line 2).
Claim 6, lines 12, recites the limitation “wherein the top plate is positioned at the first end surface of the ejection passage”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the ejection passage” in the claims. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “ejection channel” (claim 1) or to another element. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 7, lines 1-3, recites the limitation “wherein the pneumatic push rod…, the cylinder body is…”. However, this limitation appears to be missing words such that the meaning of the limitation is unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to read as --wherein the cylinder body is provided with an exhaust port which is communicated with the gas receiving chamber--.
Claim 14, lines 3-4, recites the limitation “wherein the feed hopper is communicated with the feed port”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the feed port” in the claims. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “feeding port” (claim 4) or to another element. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Claims 15-20 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 14.
Claim 16, lines 3-4, recites the limitation “wherein the position of the movable baffle is below the upper end surface of the feed channel”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the upper end surface” in the claims. It is unclear as to which surface of the feed channel “the upper end surface” refers, and the overall structure of the feed channel is thus also unclear. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 17, lines 4-5, recites the limitation “wherein the agitating component is electrically connected to the controller”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the agitating component” in the claims. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “agitating member” (claim 4), “agitating blade” (claim 4), or to another element altogether. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 20, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “wherein the rotating base is disposed above the fixed base and is connected thereto via a rotating shaft”, and claim 20, lines 5-6 recites the limitation “wherein the driving device comprises a third driver, a rotation shaft, a first gear, and a second gear”. It is unclear whether the elements “rotating shaft” and “rotation shaft” are intended to refer to the same element or to different elements. The claim is made further unclear by later references to both the “rotating shaft” and “rotation shaft” that appear to switch arbitrarily between use of each element name. The ambiguity of element references renders the structure of the base and driving device unclear, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
Claim 20, lines 13-14, recites the limitation “wherein the housing and the feeding device, pneumatic ejection device, and cleaning device…are mounted on the rotation base”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the rotation base” in the claims. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “rotating base” (claim 20) or to another element. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0338442 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Murdock et al. (US 6,807,959 B1), hereinafter Murdock, and You et al. (CN 113785779 A), hereinafter You.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a food ejector (title; abstract; shown in fig. 1), comprising a housing (housing assembly 10) and, a feeding device (storage device 20), a ejection device (at least ejection member 32), and an ejection channel (ejection chamber 31), which are all arranged within the housing (fig. 2 and 11);
wherein the housing is provided with a feeding port (open upper end of housing 10 and storage chamber 21), wherein one end of the feeding device is communicated with the feeding port (fig. 3), wherein other end of the feeding device is communicated with the ejection channel (para [0114], communicated via discharge side 211);
wherein the ejection device is located at one end of the ejection channel (fig. 11) and is configured to eject the food from the ejection channel out of the housing (para [0083], ejection member 32 is capable of “eject[ing] food particles to the outside”);
Li does not appear to specifically disclose:
wherein the ejector is a pneumatic ejector,
wherein the ejection device is a pneumatic ejection device,
a cleaning device,
a controller;
wherein an air outlet of the cleaning device is communicated with the ejection channel;
wherein the controller is connected to the feeding device, the pneumatic ejection device, and the cleaning device.
However, Murdock is in the field of ejector devices (title; abstract) and teaches:
wherein the ejector (pneumatic device 10) is a pneumatic ejector (see title and abstract),
wherein the ejection device (shown in fig. 7, comprising at least main valve 100) is a pneumatic ejection device (see title and abstract; col 7, lines 14-24),
a controller (printed circuit board 94);
wherein the controller is connected to the pneumatic ejection device (see fig. 4, printed circuit board 94 is at least indirectly connected to all components of the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the food ejector with ejection device of Li to have made the ejection device a pneumatic ejection device with controller as taught by Murdock with a reasonable expectation of success to allow a user to more precisely vary and control the velocity and distance of ejected feed (col 2, lines 57-67).
Additionally, You is in the field of food ejector devices (title; abstract; fig. 1) and teaches:
a cleaning device (at least gas storage tank 12 and compressor 17; fig. 1),
wherein an air outlet (“spraying port” page 16/22, second to last paragraph) of the cleaning device is communicated with the ejection channel (throwing chamber 16; fig. 1; page 16/22, second to last paragraph);
wherein the controller (control system 11) is connected to the feeding device (at least feed bin 3), and the cleaning device (fig. 1, control system 11 connected at least indirectly to feed bin 3, gas storage tank 12, and compressor 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the food ejector with ejection channel of Li to incorporate the cleaning device and air outlet with controller as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success to allow a user to more easily and effectively clean residue from the ejection channel, thereby preventing mold and mildew growth (page 15/22, fourth paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the pneumatic ejection device (from Murdock, shown in fig. 7, comprising at least main valve 100) ejects the food via a pneumatic push rod (from Murdock, main valve 100; fig. 7); wherein the cleaning device (from You, comprises gas storage tank 12 and compressor 17) is configured to clean the ejection channel (from You, throwing chamber 16) by directing a stream of gas therethrough (from You, fig. 1; page 16/22, second to last paragraph; page 18/22, second to last paragraph, throwing chamber 16 is cleaned by blowing air through from gas storage tank 12 through “spraying port”).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the pneumatic push rod (from Murdock, main valve 100) in some embodiments of the present application, comprises a cylinder body (from Murdock, defined by walls of pressure chamber 128, shown in fig. 7), a compression spring (from Murdock, helical spring 102) installed inside the cylinder (from Murdock, fig. 7), and a ram rod (from Murdock, main valve stem 100), wherein the compression spring is sleeved around the ram rod (from Murdock, fig. 7), wherein ram rod includes a rod body (from Murdock, elongate rod portion of main valve stem 100) and a ram plate (from Murdock, flat end portion of main valve stem 100; shown on left side of main valve stem 100 in fig. 7), wherein one end of the rod body is provided with a limiting structure (from Murdock, magnet plate 118) configured to restrict movement of the compression spring (from Murdock, fig. 7, magnet plate 118 is capable of restricting movement of helical spring 102), and the other end of the rod body extends out of the cylinder body (from Murdock, fig. 7-8) and is fixedly connected to the top plate (from Murdock, fig. 7);
wherein the end of the ram rod, which is provided with the limiting structure, together with the end of the cylinder body opposite to the ram rod and the side wall of the cylinder body, define a gas receiving chamber (from Murdock, pressure chamber 128; fig. 7), wherein the ram rod is slidably connected to an inner side wall of the cylinder body (from Murdock, fig. 7, main valve stem 100 is at least indirectly slidably connected to an inner side wall of the cylinder body);
wherein the top plate is positioned at the first end surface (from Murdock, end of bridge 113) of the ejection passage (from Murdock, shown in fig. 7), and the shape and area of the top plate are identical to those of the first end surface (from Murdock, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein the pneumatic push rod in some embodiments of the present application, the cylinder body (from Murdock, defined by walls of pressure chamber 128, shown in fig. 7) is provided an exhaust port (from Murdock, hollow core bolt 105) which is communicated with the gas receiving chamber (from Murdock, pressure chamber 128; fig. 7, hollow core bolt 105 is at least indirectly communicated with pressure chamber 128).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein the exhaust port (from Murdock, hollow core bolt 105) is located on the first end surface (from Murdock, end of bridge 113; fig. 7, hollow core bolt 105 is located at least indirectly on or atop the end of bridge 113).
Regarding claim 10, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the housing (from Li, housing assembly 10) is provided with a discharge port (from Li, open end of ejection chamber 31; see fig. 1 and 11);
the ejection channel (from Li, ejection chamber 31) is arranged in an inclined manner (from Li, fig. 11), and the pneumatic push rod (from Li, at least ejection member 32) is located at a lower end of the ejection channel (from Li, fig. 11), and a higher end of the ejection channel is communicated with the discharge port (from Li, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 8, and further discloses wherein the housing (from Li, housing assembly 10) is provided with a discharge port (from Li, open end of ejection chamber 31; see fig. 1 and 11);
wherein the ejection channel (from Li, ejection chamber 31) is arranged in an inclined manner (from Li, fig. 11), and the pneumatic push rod (from Li, at least ejection member 32) is located at a lower end of the ejection channel (from Li, fig. 11), and a higher end of the ejection channel is communicated with the discharge port (from Li, fig. 11).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li et al. (US 2022/0338442 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Murdock et al. (US 6,807,959 B1), hereinafter Murdock, and You et al. (CN 113785779 A), hereinafter You, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (KR 101600761 B1), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the pneumatic ejection device (from Murdock, shown in fig. 7, comprises at least main valve 100) further comprises an air pump (from Murdock, comprises piston 58 and motor 52), an air chamber (from Murdock, cylinder 68), and a first air supply conduit (from Murdock, exhaust lines 76a, 76b), wherein the air chamber is communicated with the air pump (from Murdock, fig. 7, cylinder 68 is at least indirectly communicated with piston 58 and motor 52), wherein one end of the first air supply conduit is communicated with an outlet of the air chamber (from Murdock, fig. 6), and the other end of the first air supply conduit is communicated with the pneumatic push rod (from Murdock, main valve 100; fig. 6-7), wherein a first valve (from Murdock, valve plate 70) is provided on the first air supply conduit (from Murdock, fig. 6-7);
wherein a first sensor (from Murdock, pressure transducer 200) for detecting the air pressure (from Murdock, col 14, lines 11-17); the cleaning channel has a second air supply conduit (from You, conduit connecting gas storage tank 12 and throwing chamber 16, shown in fig. 1) and an outlet (from You, opening of “spraying port”), wherein one end of the second air supply conduit is communicated with the air chamber (from You, gas storage tank 12), and the other end of the second air supply conduit is communicated with the outlet (from You, see fig. 1); wherein the outlet is located on the ejection channel (from You, throwing chamber 16) and is configured to blow air into the ejection channel (from You, fig. 1; page 16/22, second to last paragraph).
Li as modified does not appear to specifically disclose:
wherein the first valve is a first solenoid valve;
wherein the first sensor for detecting the air pressure inside the air chamber is provided in the air chamber; and
wherein a second solenoid valve is provided on the second air supply conduit.
However, Cho is in the field of ejection devices (title; abstract) and teaches:
wherein the first valve (discharge solenoid valve 1501) is a first solenoid valve (page 24/29, third paragraph; fig. 7);
wherein a second solenoid valve (discharge solenoid valve 1501) is provided on the second air supply conduit (conduit between nitrogen tank 144 and cylinder 130; fig. 7; page 24/29, third paragraph; page 26/29, fourth paragraph, note that although a hydraulic system is discussed in the disclosure, Cho notes that the hydraulic system can be substituted for a pneumatic system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pneumatic food ejector with first valve and second air supply conduit of Li as modified to have made the first valve a solenoid valve and to incorporate a second solenoid valve on the second air supply conduit as taught by Cho with a reasonable expectation of success to allow more precise electronic control of pressure released into the ejection channel, thereby allowing more effective control over timing and force of the ejection (page 24/29, eighth paragraph).
Although Li as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first sensor for detecting the air pressure inside the air chamber is provided in the air chamber, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the first sensor within the air chamber, with the motivation of arranging the first sensor further away from moving parts of the device, thereby limiting damage to the first sensor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 3, and further discloses wherein after the pneumatic push rod ejects the food and before the ejection channel (from You, throwing chamber 16) is cleaned by the cleaning device (from You, at least gas storage tank 12 and compressor 17), the air pressure within the air chamber (from You, gas storage tank 12) remains above atmospheric pressure (from You, page 18/22, sixth paragraph, air pressure between pneumatic ejection of feed from throwing chamber 16 and additional pneumatic cleaning air gust from chamber 16 would naturally be capable of remaining above atmospheric pressure for at least some length of time). The cleaning device then utilizes residual gas within the air chamber, remaining after the ejection of the food by the pneumatic push rod, to blow and clean the ejection channel (from You, page 18/22, sixth paragraph, device would be capable of utilizing at least some residual gas within gas storage tank 12 after ejection of food, as at least some gas would remain in gas storage tank 12 after release of initial burst to eject food);
wherein the second solenoid valve is configured to open the second air supply conduit after the first solenoid valve actuates to open the first air supply conduit (device of Li as modified would naturally work in this manner in order to achieve pneumatic ejection of food followed by pneumatic cleaning as taught by Li as modified by at least You).
Li as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the time delay between opening the first air supply pipeline and second air supply pipeline is no greater than 1 second and no less than 0.2 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a time delay no greater than 1 second and no less than 0.2 seconds, with the motivation of providing enough time for food to completely leave the ejection channel after ejection, while also not providing enough time for food residue to settle within the ejection channel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The Examiner further notes that no criticality has been provided in the instant disclosure regarding a time delay being no greater than 1 second and no less than 0.2 seconds.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein the housing (from Li, housing assembly 10) is provided with a discharge port (from Li, open end of ejection chamber 31; see fig. 1 and 11);
wherein the ejection channel (from Li, ejection chamber 31) is arranged in an inclined manner (from Li, fig. 11), and the pneumatic push rod (from Li, at least ejection member 32) is located at a lower end of the ejection channel (from Li, fig. 11), and a higher end of the ejection channel is communicated with the discharge port (from Li, fig. 11).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li et al. (US 2022/0338442 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Murdock et al. (US 6,807,959 B1), hereinafter Murdock, You et al. (CN 113785779 A), hereinafter You, and Cho et al. (KR 101600761 B1), hereinafter Cho, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Levy (US 2024/0229751 A1), hereinafter Levy.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the air outlet is inclined toward a first end surface of the ejection channel, wherein the first end surface is proximate to the pneumatic ejection device, wherein the axis of the air outlet forms an acute angle with side wall of the ejection channel or with a cross-sectional plane of side wall of the ejection channel.
However, Levy is in the field of pneumatic cleaning devices (title; abstract; para [0035]) and teaches wherein the air outlet (gas outlet 704) is inclined toward a first end surface of the ejection channel (end surface of channel containing needle 224, shown in fig. 9B; para [0052] gas outlet 704 has adjustable angle), wherein the first end surface is proximate to the pneumatic ejection device, wherein the axis of the air outlet forms an acute angle with side wall of the ejection channel (side wall of channel containing needle 224, shown in fig. 9B) or with a cross-sectional plane of side wall of the ejection channel (fig. 9B; para [0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pneumatic food ejector with air outlet of Li as modified to have made the air outlet inclined toward a first end of the ejection channel at a variable angle as taught by Levy with a reasonable expectation of success to allow the cleaning device to clean in a more versatile manner, thereby allowing for more complete and thorough cleaning of the ejector (para [0051]-[0052]]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the housing (from Li, housing assembly 10) is provided with a discharge port (from Li, open end of ejection chamber 31; see fig. 1 and 11);
wherein the ejection channel (from Li, ejection chamber 31) is arranged in an inclined manner (from Li, fig. 11), and the pneumatic push rod (from Li, at least ejection member 32) is located at a lower end of the ejection channel (from Li, fig. 11), and a higher end of the ejection channel is communicated with the discharge port (from Li, fig. 11).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li et al. (US 2022/0338442 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Murdock et al. (US 6,807,959 B1), hereinafter Murdock, and You et al. (CN 113785779 A), hereinafter You, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chamberlain et al. (GB 2480271 A), hereinafter Chamberlain.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 8, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the top plate is magnetically connected to the first end surface.
However, Chamberlain is in the field of ejection devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the top plate (seat 34) is magnetically connected to the first end surface (top surface of base 46; fig. 1; page 11/24, third paragraph, “electromagnet 36a, 36b which, when activated draws the seat 34 to the launching tube base 46…”, note that seat 34 is magnetically connected to top surface of base 46 via electromagnets 36a, 36b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pneumatic food ejector with top plate and first end surface of Li as modified to incorporate the magnetic connection as taught by Chamberlain with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize well understood mechanisms to help position the top plate as desired by a user, thereby allowing for further control over the ejection force, height, and distance (page 11/24, fourth paragraph).
Claim(s) 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li et al. (US 2022/0338442 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Murdock et al. (US 6,807,959 B1), hereinafter Murdock, and You et al. (CN 113785779 A), hereinafter You, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pontus et al. (US 7,421,946 B1), hereinafter Pontus.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the feeding device comprises a feed hopper (from Li, storage chamber 21), wherein the feed hopper is communicated with the feed port (from Li, open upper end of housing 10 and storage chamber 21; fig. 1 and 8).
Li as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the feeding device comprises a feed channel, and a feed driver which is configured to drive the feed channel to move vertically along an inner side wall of the housing, wherein the feed channel is disposed at one side of the feed hopper, wherein the feed hopper and the feed channel are separated by a side wall of the feed channel that is proximate to the feed hopper, and the upper end of the feed channel is communicated with the feed hopper;
wherein the feed driver is coupled with the controller.
However, Pontus is in the field of dispensing devices (abstract; col 3, line 62 – col 4, line 37; fig. 6) and teaches a feed channel (upper portion of scoop 131, shown in fig. 5-6), and a feed driver (ram 71) which is configured to drive the feed channel to move vertically along an inner side wall of the housing (vertical guide rails 136, 137; fig. 5-6; col 5, lines 9-19), wherein the feed channel is disposed at one side of the feed hopper (hopper 110; fig. 6), wherein the feed hopper and the feed channel are separated by a side wall of the feed channel (right side wall of scoop 131, shown in fig. 5-6) that is proximate to the feed hopper (fig. 5-6), and the upper end of the feed channel is communicated with the feed hopper (fig. 5-6);
wherein the feed driver is coupled with the controller (control center 180; col 5, lines 28-32, control center 180 is at least indirectly connected to cylinder 62 and ram 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pneumatic food ejector with feed hopper and feed port of Li as modified to incorporate the feed channel and feed driver configured to drive the feed channel to move vertically as taught by Pontus with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for more effective control over the quantity of food dispensed into the ejection channel of the food ejector (col 5, lines 9-19).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 14, and further discloses wherein the pneumatic food ejector (from Li, see title and abstract; shown in fig. 1) further comprises a base (from Li, comprises base 41 and bracket assembly 42) and a driving device (from Li, comprises head drive assembly 43) disposed on the base (from Li, fig. 18), wherein the driving device is configured to rotate the housing, the feeding device, pneumatic ejection device, cleaning device, and ejection channel which are all housed in the housing, along an axis of the housing that is perpendicular to the ground (from Li, fig. 18-19; para [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 18, and further discloses wherein the driving device (from Li, comprises head drive assembly 43) comprises a third driver (from Li, drive member 431), a rotating shaft (from Li, central upwardly protruding portion of base 41), a first gear (from Li, gear ring 4311), and a second gear (from Li, drive gear ring 432), wherein an output shaft of the third driver (from Li, output shaft of drive member 431, shown in fig. 19) is connected to the first gear (from Li, fig. 18-19), and the first gear is meshed with the second gear (from Li, fig. 18-19), wherein the second gear is sleeved on the rotating shaft (from Li, fig. 18-19) and is fixedly connected to a rotational bearing (from Li, first rolling assembly 441 and second rolling assembly 442) which is provided on the rotating shaft (from Li, fig. 19);
wherein the axis of the rotating shaft and the axis of the housing which is perpendicular to the ground lie along the same straight line (from Li, fig. 1-2 and 18).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 18, and further discloses wherein the base (from Li, comprises base 41 and bracket assembly 42) includes a fixed base (from Li, base 41) and a rotating base (from Li, bracket assembly 42), wherein the rotating base is disposed above the fixed base and is connected thereto via a rotating shaft (from Li, central upwardly protruding portion of base 41; fig. 19), wherein the axis of the rotating shaft and the axis of the fixed base lie along the same straight line (from Li, fig. 19);
wherein the driving device (from Li, comprises head drive assembly 43) comprises a third driver (from Li, drive member 431), a rotation shaft (from Li, central upwardly protruding portion of base 41), a first gear (from Li, gear ring 4311), and a second gear (from Li, drive gear ring 432), wherein an output shaft of the third driver (from Li, output shaft of drive member 431, shown in fig. 19) is connected to the first gear (from Li, fig. 18-19), and the first gear is meshed with the second gear (from Li, fig. 18-19), wherein the second gear is sleeved on the rotating shaft (from Li, fig. 18-19) and is fixedly connected to a rotational bearing (from Li, first rolling assembly 441 and second rolling assembly 442) which is provided on the rotating shaft (from Li, fig. 19);
wherein the third driver and the first gear are mounted on the rotating base (from Li, fig. 18-19), while the rotation shaft and the second gear are mounted on the fixed base (from Li, fig. 18-19, drive gear ring 432 is at least indirectly mounted on base 41), wherein the third driver and the first gear rotate about the axis of the rotation shaft (from Li, fig. 18-19);
wherein the housing and the feeding device, pneumatic ejection device, and cleaning device which are all disposed in the housing, are mounted on the rotation base (from Li, fig. 18-19).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li et al. (US 2022/0338442 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Murdock et al. (US 6,807,959 B1), hereinafter Murdock, You et al. (CN 113785779 A), hereinafter You, and Pontus et al. (US 7,421,946 B1), hereinafter Pontus, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 115136900 A), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 14, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein an output shaft of the feed driver is connected to a rotating wheel, wherein the rotating wheel is provided with an eccentric shaft, which is connected to the feed channel via a linkage rod;
wherein the linkage rod is provided with an R-shaped hole and a triangular hole, wherein the eccentric shaft is movably connected to the linkage rod via the R-shaped hole, wherein the feed channel is provided with a connecting pin which is rotatably connected to the linkage rod through the triangular hole.
However, Zhou is in the field of food ejector devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein an output shaft of the feed driver (shown in fig. 7) is connected to a rotating wheel (output gear 2; fig. 7), wherein the rotating wheel is provided with an eccentric shaft (linkage rod 21), which is connected to the feed channel (inner shell 122) via a linkage rod (sliding piece 3; fig. 7, linkage rod 21 is connected to inner shell 122 at least indirectly via sliding piece 3);
wherein the linkage rod is provided with a first hole (first long hole 31) and a second hole (guide groove 32), wherein the eccentric shaft is movably connected to the linkage rod via the first hole (fig. 7 and 10, linkage rod 21 is capable of movement relative to sliding piece 3 via first long hole 31), wherein the feed channel is provided with a connecting pin (“guide bump”) which is rotatably connected to the linkage rod through the second hole (fig. 7, “guide bump” is capable of rotating relative to sliding piece 3).
Although Li as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first hole is an R-shaped hole and the second hole is a triangular hole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the holes within the linkage rod of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. The Examiner further notes that no criticality has been provided in the instant disclosure regarding an R-shape of the first hole and a triangular shape of the second hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pneumatic food ejector with feed driver and feed channel of Li as modified to incorporate the rotating wheel, linkage rod, and connecting pin as taught by Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success to
utilize a simpler, more cost-effective mechanism to allow vertical movement of the feed channel.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li et al. (US 2022/0338442 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Murdock et al. (US 6,807,959 B1), hereinafter Murdock, You et al. (CN 113785779 A), hereinafter You, and Pontus et al. (US 7,421,946 B1), hereinafter Pontus, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Turnbow et al. (US 2,849,161 A), hereinafter Turnbow.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 14, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein an upper portion of the feed channel is provided with a movable baffle and a first driver which is configured to drive the baffle to rotate, wherein the position of the movable baffle is below the upper end surface of the feed channel.
However, Turnbow is in the field of food dispensers (title) and teaches wherein an upper portion of the feed channel (either of chute 42, 44) is provided with a movable baffle (valve 46) and a first driver (handle 70) which is configured to drive the baffle to rotate (col 2, lines 19-37 and 56-60), wherein the position of the movable baffle is below the upper end surface of the feed channel (fig. 2, valve 46 is below an upper end surface of either of chutes 42, 44 on at least their respective outer sides).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pneumatic food ejector with feed channel of Li as modified to incorporate the movable baffle and first driver as taught by Turnbow with a reasonable expectation of success to allow a user to further control the quantity and direction of the flow of food through the feed channel (col 2, lines 19-37).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li et al. (US 2022/0338442 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Murdock et al. (US 6,807,959 B1), hereinafter Murdock, You et al. (CN 113785779 A), hereinafter You, and Pontus et al. (US 7,421,946 B1), hereinafter Pontus, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0100460 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Li as modified discloses the pneumatic food ejector according to claim 14, and further discloses wherein a lower portion of the feed hopper (from Li, lower portion of storage chamber 21) is provided with an agitating member (from Li, mixing wheel 25; fig. 4 and 8), wherein the agitating member comprises a second driver (from Li, drive member 241) and an agitating blade (from Li, mixing part 251) connected to an output shaft of the second driver (from Li, fig. 5, mixing part 251 is at least indirectly attached to an output shaft of drive member 241).
Li as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the agitating component is electrically connected to the controller.
However, Chen is in the field of food ejector devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the agitating component (wing 380) is electrically connected to the controller (control unit 900; para [0053]-[0054], wing 380 is at least indirectly electrically connected to control unit 900 via driving component 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pneumatic food ejector with agitating component and controller of Li as modified to have made the agitating component electrically connected to the controller as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to allow more automatic operation of the pneumatic food ejector (para [0057]).
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 The Examiner notes that Cho in general teaches use of solenoid valves.
Prosecution Insights