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, “sensing …a heat load of the food product with a first infrared temperature sensor” (line 9, page 3) introduces new matter as there is no support whatsoever for sensing a heat load with the recited first infrared temperature sensor. Heat is measured in units of energy and not in units of temperature. The recitation is explicitly contrary to the disclosure which states that “such can be used to calculate real time production rate and therefore heat load of the food product” (pg. pub. para. 17). Therefore there is no support for sensing a heat load with the first temperature sensor.
The recitation, “adjusting” as claimed and the later recited “further adjusting” step is new matter as there is no support for two separate adjusting steps during freezing as claimed. The recitation requires a first adjusting step being responsive to: inlet temperature, mass flow rate of food product, and outlet temperature and the second adjusting step being responsive to the outlet temperature and both being during the freezing process and this is entirely without support. The controller in the disclosure does not perform separate adjusting steps with one adjusting step responsive to several parameters and another adjusting step responsive to one parameter.
In regard to claim 4, see the claim interpretation section below.
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, “sensing …a heat load of the food product with a first infrared temperature sensor” (line 9, page 3) is entirely unclear since the disclosure does not support sensing a heat load with the recited first infrared temperature sensor. Heat is measured in units of energy and not in units of temperature. The recitation is explicitly contrary to the disclosure which states that “such can be used to calculate real time production rate and therefore heat load of the food product” (pg. pub. para. 17). Therefore it is unclear what step is included and excluded by the recitation, since temperature sensors do not measure heat energy units but measure temperature units.
The recitation, “for recording a continuous cross-section area of the food product entering the inlet” is indefinite if interpreted to require that the measured cross-section area of the food must be acquired strictly by a non-stop or continuous measurement that is not discrete. Contrary to this, the state of the art controller devices and laser scanners are digital devices that operate at a frequency of operation and do not obtain a continuous measurement. Rather they make a measurement per unit time, often many measurements in a short time, perhaps many measurements per second, but not a continuous measurement, since digital devices cannot even store continuous data and do not perform continuous measurement but are inherently discrete and are not analog devices. Therefore the present recitation is entirely unclear since the disclosure does not teach that the controller and the laser scanner are analog devices and it is unclear what does and does not qualify as continuous. Further it is not clear if a digital record of a laser measurement of an area of the food product is within the scope of the claim recitation or not. Further, it is unclear what other interpretation of “continuous cross-section area” should be applied since the disclosure does not define how the area is continuous. Supposing this is somehow defining how accurate the area measurement by the laser scanner is, this is particularly indefinite as well, since there is no way to determine the requisite degree of precision required by the recitation.
The recitation, “adjusting an injection rate of the cryogenic substance into the internal chamber, the adjusting responsive to: (i) the temperature and the heat load of the food product sensed at the inlet for entering the cryogenic freezer, (ii) mass flow rates and loading of the food product having the recorded continuous cross-section area at the inlet,” (page 3, line 20 to page 4, line 5) is unclear since there is no support for a consideration of a heat load as determined by the inlet temperature sensor.
Further the recitation, “mass flow rates and loading of the food product having the recorded continuous cross-section area at the inlet,” (page 3, line 24-25) is indefinite since there is no way to determine what “loading” refers to. The recitation appears to reference two parameters “mass flow rate” and “loading”, however the disclosure does not define or describe what “loading” references and it is entirely unclear what the recited parameter is and there is no way to determine what must be measured or calculated. Further, it is unclear why the recitation requires a plurality of mass flow rates when there is only a single rate being measured at the inlet of the freezer; and it is unclear how the food product has multiple flow rates as recited. The food product is disclosed as entering the freezer at a mass flow rate and there is no way to determine what the multiple mass flow rates refer to. A mass flow rate may change over time, but that is not a plurality of rates, that is merely the mass flow rate changing over time.
The recitation, “the heat removal occurring at the food product during the freezing process” (page 4, line 2-3) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and as the recitation appears to be confounded and conflated with the heat transfer at the food product which has been previously recited. It is entirely unclear how the heat removal is different from the heat transferred at the food product. Clearly, the disclosure only supports that the food product is cooled within the freezer and experiences the recited heat transfer and not some other un-defined heat removal.
The recitation, “adjusting” as claimed and the later recited further adjusting are entirely unclear since both steps are recited to be during the freezing process and yet the disclosure does not describe two separate adjusting steps during the freezing process, much less that the adjusting step is responsive to: inlet temperature, mass flow rate of food product, and outlet temperature and a further adjusting step for providing the food product at a selected temperature at the outlet. It is entirely unclear how to interpret the claimed steps since the first adjusting step would necessarily respond to the outlet temperature already and the recitation appears to be merely repeating what the adjusting step already does. Further it is unclear when these steps would be performed relative to each other, since the claim states that both are “during the freezing process” and it makes no sense for them to be performed separately and yet at the same time.
In regard to claim 4, see the claim interpretation section below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitation “fan circulation assembly” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any delineation of what structure a fan circulation assembly must comprise. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, it is presumed to be merely a fan (para. 30).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDilda (US 5664485) 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 claimed features as far as can be interpreted as explained below.
In regard to claims 1, 8, McDilda teaches a method for providing and adjusting heat transfer (see cooling with liquid) to a food product (dough and/or filling; column 3) in an internal chamber (58) of a cryogenic freezer (50), comprising:
sensing a temperature of the food product (dough, filling) having known thermal properties with a first infrared temperature sensor (column 5, line 10-15; 62) at an inlet (see near 62) and a second infrared temperature (60) at an outlet (see near 60) from the internal chamber (58) of the cryogenic freezer (50);
providing a cryogenic substance (liquid CO2 or N2; column 5, line 39) onto the food product in the internal chamber (58) for the heat transfer at said food product (dough / filling is cooled); and
adjusting (via controller 51; column 6, line 8-10; column 7, line 60-column 8, line 5, 15-20) an injection rate (“mass flow rate of coolant” - column 7, line 60-65) of the cryogenic substance into the internal chamber (58) responsive to:
(i) the temperature of the food product sensed at the inlet with the first infrared temperature sensor (62) (column 5, line 40-45, 55; column 6, line 5-6), and
(ii) mass flow rates of the food product (dough / filling) at the inlet (near 62)(see that the amount of coolant provided is dependent on an amount of food product being cooled, column 7, line 40-50);
(iii) the temperature of the food product (dough) sensed at the outlet (near 60) with the second infrared temperature sensor (60) (column 5, line 46; column 5, line 55).
Note that McDilda teaches explicitly that a determination is made as to whether the food product at the outlet is at a select temperature (column 7, line 60 - column 8, line 5, see there is a comparison of the temperature at the exit of the cryogenic freezer to some standard to determine if the food product is too cool or not cool enough) and teaches continued adjusting of the providing the cryogenic substance for the heat transfer at the food product (dough / filling) in the internal chamber (58) for providing the food product (dough / filling) to be at the select temperature sensed (column 7, line 60-column 8, line 5) (adjusting continues and is not just performed a single time, coolant is continued to be adjusted as needed to provide the desired outlet temperature as operation is continues, column 7, line 60 - column 8, line 5; see production line has continued operation as the food product is produced column 1, line 10-30 and is not limited to producing a single product).
McDilda does not explicitly teach sensing oxygen content in the internal chamber (58) of the freezer (50) for determining if external air is drawn into the internal chamber (58) of the freezer (50). 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 McDilda with sensing of oxygen with the oxygen sensor Viard for the purpose of determining the need to reduce the external air entering the freezer.
McDilda does not explicitly teach a freezing process of the food product and scanning the food product with a laser scanner at the inlet to the internal chamber (58) of the cryogenic freezer (50) to record an area of the food product entering the inlet so as to determine a mass flow rate of the food product entering the freezer, and adjusting the injection rate of the cryogenic substance to the internal chamber (58) responsive to (ii) the mass flow rate of the food product at the inlet, the mass flow rate determined by the recorded area of the food product at the inlet.
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 McDilda to be performed with food products that are desirably frozen to apply the control and sensory benefits of McDilda to freezing food product applications and to modify McDilda with the 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 greater determination capability of how much cooling is required to freeze the food product and to program the controlling computer to use the scanning information to assist in adjusting the injection rate of cryogenic coolant into the internal chamber (58) of the freezer (50) of McDilda for the purpose of providing greater information for robust automatic control of the coolant flow rate 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 amount varies.
Lastly, supposing any allegation contrary to the above concerning the infrared temperature sensors, official notice is taken that infrared temperature sensors employ known thermal properties of the sensed objects to determine a temperature of the objects. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to operate the infrared temperature sensors with such information to determine the temperature of the food products accurately.
In regard to claim 2, McDilda teaches additional sensing (63) of a temperature of an atmosphere in the cryogenic freezer (50) to which the food product is exposed (see 63; column 6, line 36).
In regard to claim 4, McDilda teaches additional sensing of an atmosphere (temperature thereof - see 63) in the freezer (50) for the automatically adjusting of the heat transfer (column 5, line 45-57). McDilda does not appear to explicitly teach a fan in the freezer for automatically adjusting the heat transfer. However, Muscato (see fan 24; para. 30, 42 - used to aide heat transfer in freezer) teaches a fan in the freezer for the automatic adjusting of the heat transfer. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify McDilda with a fan and to control the fan in accordance with the sensing and scanning data and cooling objectives to obtain the desired cooling and efficient utilization of the coolant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered and are that the prior art does not teach the claims as amended; these allegations are not persuasive and the applicant is directed to the detailed rejections above which shows how the prior art meets the claim limitations and how the claims include new matter and indefinite language. The prior art shows that there is nothing inventive or non-obvious about the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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
JFPIII
December 11, 2025