Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,234,890 to Passoke et al. in view of JP Patent No. 2015-222093 to Hino.
Referring to claims 1 and 14, Passoke et al. discloses a food processing machine comprising, a stationary assembly – at 14,18, a dynamic conveyor assembly – at 20,22, which is mounted on the stationary assembly – at 14, so as to be rotatable about a rotation axis – see figures 1-5, and is fluidly connected to the stationary assembly – at 14 – see figures 1-5, and defines together with the stationary assembly – at 14, a processing area which extends along the rotation axis and is designed to receive a foodstuff – see at 16,18 in figures 1-5, wherein the conveyor assembly – at 20,22, is designed to convey the foodstuff through the processing area – see figures 1-5, a seal – at 44-48, which is located between the stationary assembly – at 14,18, and the conveyor assembly – at 20,22 – see figures 1-5, and is designed to seal the processing area – see figures 1-5, wherein the stationary assembly has a substantially circular sealing groove – see grooves receiving seals 44,46,48 in figures 1-5, which is arranged coaxially with the rotation axis – see figures 1-5, and the seal – at 44-48, is arranged in the sealing groove – see figures 1-5, the sealing groove having a recess – see recessed areas proximate 44-48 in figures 1-5, which extends distally in a radial direction – see figures 1-5, and is designed to provide a disassembly access for removing the seal from the sealing groove – see figures 1-5, and wherein the seal – at 44-48, is an axial seal – see figures 1-5. Passoke et al. does not disclose the seal comprises at least one anti-rotation device which projects in a radial direction and is designed to extend into the recess of the sealing groove. Hino does disclose the seal – at 1, comprises at least one anti-rotation device – at 12, which projects in a radial direction and is designed to extend into the recess of the sealing groove – at 22 – see figures 5-11. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use. Further, it is recommended to change “conveyor assembly” to - -dynamic conveyor assembly- - for consistency.
Referring to claim 2, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses at least one anti-rotation device – at 12, has an asymmetrical design – see figures 6b,6c,7 and 11 of Hino. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use.
Referring to claim 3, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses the sealing groove – at 22, has an undercut – see figure 11 of Hino, and the at least one anti-rotation device – at 12, has a bulge which extends in a circumferential direction of the seal and is designed to engage with the undercut – see figure 11 of Hino, or wherein the sealing groove – at 22, has a chamfered insertion portion – see figure 6c of Hino, and the at least one anti-rotation device – at 12, has a correspondingly shaped bulge which is designed to engage with the chamfered insertion portion – see figure 6c of Hino. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use.
Referring to claim 4, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses the recess – at 22, and the at least one anti-rotation device – at 12, have an asymmetrical design which is such that the at least one anti-rotation device – at 12, can be received by the recess – at 22, exclusively in one installation position – see figures 6b,6c,7,11 of Hino. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use.
Referring to claim 5, Passoke et al. and Hino further discloses the recess – at 22, is a first recess and the sealing groove has a second recess – see portions of recess receiving item 11 in figures 6c and 11 of Hino, which is offset by an offset angle relative to the first recess, wherein the offset angle being not equal to 180° - see 90 degree angle in figures 6c and 11 of Hino. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use.
Referring to claim 6, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses the recess – at 22, and the at least one anti-rotation device – at 12, extend outward in a radial direction – see figures 5-11 of Hino. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use.
Referring to claim 7, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses wherein, in a plane whose surface normal forms the rotation axis, the recess – at 22, has a first projection surface – see surfaces forming item 22, and the at least one anti-rotation device – at 12, has a second projection surface – see surfaces forming item 22, which is smaller than the first projection surface – see 12 fits into 22 and is smaller than 22 in figures 5-11 of Hino. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use.
Referring to claim 8, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses the seal – at 1, and the at least one anti-rotation device – at 12, are integrally formed – see figures 5-11 of Hino. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use.
Referring to claim 9, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses the food processing machine is a filling machine – see figures 1-5 of Passoke et al., the stationary assembly is embodied as a hopper inlet – at 18, and the conveyor assembly is embodied as a feeder curve of the filling machine – see at 20,22 in figures 1-5 of Passoke et al. Further, it is recommended to change “conveyor assembly” to - -dynamic conveyor assembly- - for consistency.
Referring to claim 10, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses the food processing machine is a filling machine – see figures 1-5 of Passoke et al., the stationary assembly is embodied as a hopper flange – see top of 18 in figures 1-5 of Passoke et al., and the conveyor assembly is embodied as a pump of the filling machine – see pump detailed in column 4 lines 40-45 of Passoke et al. Further, it is recommended to change “conveyor assembly” to - -dynamic conveyor assembly- - for consistency.
Referring to claim 11, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses the seal – at 1, has a first height in an axial direction – see figures 5-11 of Hino, and the sealing groove – at 22, has a second height in the axial direction which is smaller than the first height – see at 22 in figures 5-11 of Hino, so that axial forces act on the seal – at 1, through the stationary assembly and the conveyor assembly – see figures 5-11 of Hino and figures 1-5 of Passoke et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use. Further, it is recommended to change “conveyor assembly” to - -dynamic conveyor assembly- - for consistency.
Referring to claim 12, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses the seal – at 1, has a first height in a radial direction – see figures 5-11 of Hino, and the sealing groove – at 22, has a second height in a radial direction which is smaller than the first height – see at 22 in figures 5-11 of Hino, so that radial forces act on the seal through the stationary assembly and the conveyor assembly – see figures 5-11 of Hino and figures 1-5 of Passoke et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Passoke et al. and add the seal with anti-rotation device as disclosed by Hino, so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the seal in place during use. Further, it is recommended to change “conveyor assembly” to - -dynamic conveyor assembly- - for consistency.
Referring to claim 13, Passoke et al. as modified by Hino further discloses the recess has a rounded concave shape – see proximate 44-48 in figures 1-5 of Passoke et al. and see – at 22 in figures 5-11 of Hino.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to sealing devices in general:
U.S. 4,015,784 to Hughes – shows food processor with sealing device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,334,081 to Calderon – shows food processor with sealing device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,352,150 to Markwardt – shows food processor with sealing device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,113,482 to Licata – shows sealing device
U.S. Pat. No. 7,597,612 to Maile et al. – shows food processor with sealing device
U.S. Pat. No. 9,775,460 to Summons – shows food processor with sealing device
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights