DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8 is/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.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “adjusting with the controller (i) an injection rate of the cryogenic substance onto the food product in the internal chamber for varying the evaporative heat transfer, and (ii) the circulating the cryogenic substance for varying the convective heat transfer in the internal chamber, the adjusting responsive to: (a) the known thermal properties and the cross-section area recorded of the food product, and (b) a mass flow rate of the food product being conveyed through the internal chamber for bringing the food product to a select temperature.” introduces new matter as there is no support for adjusting the circulating responsive to the recited parameters. The disclosure does have support for adjusting “speed of the fans 40…” but never teaches using “the known thermal properties, the cross-section area, and a mass flow rate of the food product” as claimed.
Further there is no support for “scanning with a laser…for known thermal properties” (line 5-7). The disclosed scanning only determines “a cross-sectional area of the food product” (see spec. para. 4; also see para. 17 “laser scanner 50”) and does not scan for known thermal properties.
Further, there is no support for “sensing the thermal properties of the food product in the internal chamber” (line 14-15). The disclosure does not support sensing the same properties obtained with the laser scanner.
Further, the recitation, “adjusting conveying of the food product through the internal chamber to an outlet of the internal chamber” in combination with the recitation of adjusting with the controller introduces new matter as there is no support for an initial adjustment of the conveying and an additional adjusting by the controller that is responsive to a mass flow rate as recited and not responsive to the parameters as claimed.
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, 2, 4, 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “scanning with a laser…for known thermal properties” (line 5-7) is entirely unclear since there is no support for scanning with the laser scanner to determine known thermal properties and there is no way to determine what thermal properties are and are not considered “known”.
Further, it is unclear what parameters are sensed in the recitation about sensing as there is no support for “sensing the thermal properties of the food product in the internal chamber” (line 14-15). The disclosure does not support sensing the same properties obtained with the laser scanner.
The recitation, “adjusting with the controller (i) an injection rate of the cryogenic substance onto the food product in the internal chamber for varying the evaporative heat transfer, and (ii) the circulating the cryogenic substance for varying the convective heat transfer in the internal chamber, the adjusting responsive to: (a) the known thermal properties and the cross-section area recorded of the food product, and (b) a mass flow rate of the food product being conveyed through the internal chamber for bringing the food product to a select temperature.” is indefinite since it is unclear what structure is required of the controller to perform the recited adjustment, and it is unclear what adjustment is encompassed and what responsiveness is encompassed since the disclosure teaches no such responsiveness.
Further, the recitation, “adjusting conveying of the food product through the internal chamber to an outlet of the internal chamber” in combination with the recitation of adjusting with the controller is indefinite as there is no way to discern how the two adjusting steps must be related.
The recitation “the adjusting responsive to:” (line 9-10, page 3) is indefinite for being unclear what adjusting is being referenced - the adjusting of line 5 or the adjusting of line 17-18 of page 2.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No recitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 2014/0230460) in view of Viard (US 6094924) and further in view of either of Muscato (US 2006/0070393) or Hocker (US 2014/0220193). See the 112 rejections and note that the prior art teaches the supported claimed features as far as can be interpreted as explained below.
In regard to claims 1, Newman teaches a method for providing and adjusting heat transfer (para. 18-19) to a food product (26, para. 16) in an internal chamber (18) of a cryogenic freezer (10), comprising:
recording a cross-section area (“product dimensions”, para. 20) of the food product (26) entering an inlet (20) to the internal chamber (18);
sensing thermal data (para. 19-20 “thermal characteristics”; see sensors 50) of the food product (26) in the internal chamber (18) and providing the data of the sensing to a controller (20);
providing a cryogenic substance (cryogen, para. 3, 17) onto the food product (26) in the internal chamber (18) for the heat transfer at said food product (26), wherein the cryogenic substance (cryogen) is selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, liquid nitrogen, carbon dioxide snow (para. 3, 17 “liquid nitrogen”) and contacting the food product (26) with the cryogenic substance (cryogen; para. 17-19) provides evaporative heat transfer at the food product (26) in the internal chamber (18), and circulating (see fans 36) the cryogenic substance (cryogen) provides convective heat transfer at the food product (26) in the internal chamber (18);
adjusting with the controller (20) (i) an injection rate (para. 19 “cryogenic injection rate”) of the cryogenic substance (cryogen) onto the food product (26) in the internal chamber (18) for varying the evaporative heat transfer (para. 8, 9, 15, 19-20), and (ii) the circulating (with the fans) the cryogenic substance (cryogen) for varying the convective heat transfer (para. 19-20) in the internal chamber (18), the adjusting responsive to: (a) the sensed thermal data (from 50, para. 20 “temperature sensed of the product”) and the cross-sectional area (“product dimensions”, para. 20), and (b) a mass flow rate (“production rate of the product”, para. 20 “speed of the product 26 through the freezing chamber 18”) of the food product (26) being conveyed (by conveyor belt 24) through the internal chamber (18) for bringing the food product (26) to a select temperature (para. 20 see desired profile and outcome of the freezing is achieved).
Newman does not explicitly teach sensing oxygen content in the internal chamber (18) of the freezer (10) for determining if external air is drawn into the internal chamber (18) of the freezer (10). However, Viard teaches sensing oxygen content (sensor 28) for determining if external air is drawn into an internal chamber (10) of a freezer (column 6, line 1-20). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Newman with sensing of oxygen with the oxygen sensor Viard for the purpose of determining the need to reduce the external air entering the freezer.
Newman does not explicitly teach that the recording is provided by scanning the food product (26) with a laser scanner at the inlet (20) to the internal chamber (18) of the cryogenic freezer (10) to record the area of the food product entering the inlet (20).
However, it is well known to scan an outer surface of food products with a laser scanner at an inlet of a cryogenic freezer to determine how much food product is entering the freezer. Muscato teaches that it is well known to chill or freeze food products (para. 3, 4) and teaches scanning a food product (“food product” - para. 16; “product” -para. 41) with a laser scanner (para. 41 - “laser”) at an inlet (see left side of figure 1) of an internal chamber (14, para. 26) of a cryogenic freezer (10) for recording an area of the food product (para. 41 laser optically measures a size of the food product) to determine a mass flow rate of the food product at the inlet (para. 41, see weight of the product is calculated from laser measurement) and adjusts (para. 41 “control the amount of injection”) an injection rate (“amount of injection” para. 41) responsive to the mass flow rate (“weight” of the food product measured by the laser, para. 41) of the food product entering the freezer at the inlet (by determining the weight of the product by the scanning by the laser; para. 41), and thus adjusts an injection rate of the coolant (para. 41).
Alternatively to Muscato, Hocker teaches that it is well known to chill or freeze food products (para. 55) and teaches scanning a food product (para. 39 - “food products 14”) with a laser scanner (see 82 - para. 46, 47 at scanning station 18) at an inlet (near 18, para. 39 - “upstream from the thermal processing station 12”) of an internal chamber (12) of a cryogenic freezer (para. 3 - “freezer”) to record an area of the food product (para. 46, see length of workpieces and surface of the workpieces are measured with the laser scanner; see data gathered includes “area” of work products para. 49); and adjusts (as food is processed, para. 18, 11) the freezing (para. 55) of the food product responsive to the scanning by the laser scanner (para. 41, 46, 49).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Newman with scanning with a laser scanner to scan the food product at the inlet of the freezer to determine a size, mass, and volume of the food product being processed to provide the controller the ability to operate with a variety of food products easily and automatically and to assist in adjusting the cooling in the internal chamber (18) of the freezer (10) of Newman for the purpose of providing greater information for robust automatic control to ensure the cooling is sufficient and effective for the specific food product amounts at any given time and to provide the proper amount of cooling to the food product that is being processed at any particular time even when the product sizes and amount varies.
In regard to claim 2, Newman teaches further sensing (see all of 50) a temperature of the internal chamber (18) in the cryogenic freezer (10) to which the food product (26) is exposed (para. 20).
In regard to claim 4, Newman teaches a fan (36) in the internal chamber (18) for distributing the cryogenic substance (cryogen) across the internal chamber (18) for the heat transfer (para. 19-20) at the food product (26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive as the amendments introduce new matter and are indefinite.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any of 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
