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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/16/2024 has been entered.
Drawings
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: Pg. 3 of the specification recites “Referring to Figure 2, a pair of impellers 21 are shown” however there is no “21” labelled in Figure 2.
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. 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 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20 each recite “A method according to…”. Since each of the recited claims are dependent claims and are further limiting the method upon which they depend, each of the claims should be changed to recite “The method according to”.
Claim 1 recites “each nozzle opening” in line 15, 16, 19, 22 and each instance of “each nozzle opening” should recite “each nozzle opening of the plurality of nozzle openings”.
Claim 1 recites “said nozzle openings” in line 24 and since line 5 recites “a plurality of nozzle openings”, should be changed to said plurality of nozzle openings in order to remain consistent.
Claim 2 recites “each nozzle opening” and each instance of “each nozzle opening” should recite “each nozzle opening of the plurality of nozzle openings”.
Claim 2 recites “said nozzle openings” in line 3. Since claim 1 recites “a plurality of nozzle openings”, claim 2 should be changed to recite “said plurality of nozzle openings” in order to remain consistent.
Claim 5 recites “each nozzle opening” and each instance of “each nozzle opening” should recite “each nozzle opening of the plurality of nozzle openings”.
Claim 5 recites “said nozzle openings” in line 3. Since claim 4 recites “a plurality of nozzle openings”, claim 5 should be changed to recite “said plurality of nozzle openings” in order to remain consistent.
Claim 12 recites “each nozzle opening” and each instance of “each nozzle opening” should recite “each nozzle opening of the plurality of nozzle openings”.
Claim 12 recites “said nozzle openings” in line 3. Since claim 11 recites “a plurality of nozzle openings”, claim 12 should be changed to recite “said plurality of nozzle openings” in order to remain consistent.
Claim 15 recites “each nozzle opening” and each instance of “each nozzle opening” should recite “each nozzle opening of the plurality of nozzle openings”.
Claim 15 recites “said nozzle openings” in line 3. Since claim 14 recites “a plurality of nozzle openings”, claim 15 should be changed to recite “said plurality of nozzle openings” in order to remain consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 14, claims 1, 11, and 14 have been amended to recite “wherein the cryogenic liquid includes cryogen in the vapor phase and the cryogenic liquid is fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings without separating the cryogen in the vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid”.
The amendment appears to raise an issue of new matter because the specification does not specifically recite that the cryogenic liquid is fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings without separating the cryogen in the vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. MPEP 2173.05(i). "Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement." MPEP 2173.05(i).
While Applicant points to Fig.1 for support of the claim amendment, Figure 1 is not sufficient for the specific language used in the claim amendment because it is not entirely clear what all would be encompassed by "separating the cryogen in the vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid" and since the specification does not discuss what is meant by separating the cryogen in the vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid, the amendment raises an issue of new matter.
For example (based on applicant's spec and drawings) when cryogenic liquid and vapor travels from 31 through 32 and 33, at the plenum 33 the cryogenic liquid and vapor would be separated into streams of cryogenic liquid and vapor (34), thus cryogenic vapor which goes through the first of lines 34 would be separated from cryogenic liquid which goes through the any of the other lines 34. Therefore, applicant's disclosure could be interpreted as teaching that the cryogenic liquid is fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings with separation of the cryogen in the vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a plurality of nozzle openings” in line 5 and then “per nozzle” and “each nozzle” in line 7 and 9. It is noted that “per nozzle” and “each nozzle” can imply multiple nozzles are present however since the claim does not recite a plurality of nozzles are present, and only recites “a plurality of nozzle openings”, it is unclear if “per nozzle” and “each nozzle” is referring to each nozzle opening of the plurality of nozzle openings, or just a nozzle and not specifically a nozzle opening.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the cryogen source” in line 10 however line 1 recites “feeding cryogenic liquid…from a source thereof”. It is unclear if “the cryogen source” is referring to a source of the cryogenic liquid in line 4 or something else.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the formable mass of food product” in lines 5, 8, 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that line 3 recites “formable food product”.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the mass of food product remains formable”. However, it is noted that line 3 recites “formable food product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the mass of food product”.
Claim 1 recites “the rate” in line 14 and “the angle” in lines 17 and 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the quantity of food product within the given period of time” in line 25, however “a quantity of food product within a given period of time” is only recited in the preamble and not included in the active method steps in the body of the claim, the body of the claim recites placing “formable food product into a vessel” and it is unclear if “formable food product” is the same as or different from “a quantity of food product.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 11, 14, each of claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 recites “feeding cryogenic liquid which is not carbon dioxide from a source thereof out of a plurality of nozzle openings” and “wherein the cryogenic liquid includes cryogen in the vapor phase and wherein the cryogenic liquid is fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings without separating the cryogen in the vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid”. It is unclear if this requires the cryogenic liquid and the cryogen in the vapor phase to both be delivered from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings without separating the cryogen in the vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid or if the cryogenic liquid can be fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings and the cryogen in the vapor phase that is fed through the plurality of nozzles has not been separated from the cryogenic liquid (thus only requiring cryogen in the vapor phase that is delivered through the nozzles with the cryogenic liquid to have not been separated from the cryogenic liquid).
Claims 4, 11, and 14 are substantially identically to claim 1, and therefore the above 112b issues raised regarding claim 1 apply to each of claims 4, 11 and 14.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “the flow of cryogenic liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the flow” is referring to the flow rate of claim 1 or something different.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “the nozzles” however claim 1 only recites “a plurality of nozzle openings”. It is unclear if “the nozzles” is referring to the plurality of nozzle openings or something different.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “the formable mass of food product” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that line 3 recites “formable food product”.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the flow of cryogenic liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the flow” is referring to the flow rate of claim 4 or something different.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites "nitrogen vapor" it is unclear if this is the same as or different from the “cryogen in the vapor phase” as newly required in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, it is first noted that claim 1 recites that the cryogenic liquid includes cryogen in the vapor phase. Claim 7 recites that “the cryogenic liquid comprises liquid nitrogen comprising nitrogen vapor and 70% up to 100% liquid nitrogen”. It is unclear how the cryogenic liquid can comprise both nitrogen vapor and 100% liquid nitrogen.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 requires that the cryogenic liquid comprises 100% liquid nitrogen, however claim 1 has been amended such that the cryogenic liquid comprises cryogen in the vapor phase. It is unclear how the cryogenic liquid can be 100% liquid nitrogen and comprise cryogen in the vapor phase.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites "nitrogen vapor" it is unclear if this is the same as or different from the “cryogen in the vapor phase” as newly required in claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, it is first noted that claim 4 recites that the cryogenic liquid includes cryogen in the vapor phase. Claim 9 recites that “the cryogenic liquid comprises liquid nitrogen comprising nitrogen vapor and 70% up to 100% liquid nitrogen”. It is unclear how the cryogenic liquid can comprise both nitrogen vapor and 100% liquid nitrogen.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 requires that the cryogenic liquid comprises 100% liquid nitrogen, however claim 4 has been amended such that the cryogenic liquid comprises cryogen in the vapor phase. It is unclear how the cryogenic liquid can be 100% liquid nitrogen and comprise cryogen in the vapor phase.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “the formable mass of food product” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that line 3 recites “formable food product”.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “the flow of cryogenic liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the flow” is referring to the flow rate of claim 11 or something different.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “the nozzles” however claim 11 only recites “a plurality of nozzle openings”. It is unclear if “the nozzles” is referring to the plurality of nozzle openings or something different.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites “the formable mass of food product” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that line 3 recites “formable food product”.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “the flow of cryogenic liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the flow” is referring to the flow rate of claim 14 or something different.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “the nozzles” however claim 14 only recites “a plurality of nozzle openings”. It is unclear if “the nozzles” is referring to the plurality of nozzle openings or something different.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites "nitrogen vapor" it is unclear if this is the same as or different from the “cryogen in the vapor phase” as newly required in claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, it is first noted that claim 11 recites that the cryogenic liquid includes cryogen in the vapor phase. Claim 17 recites that “the cryogenic liquid comprises liquid nitrogen comprising nitrogen vapor and 70% up to 100% liquid nitrogen”. It is unclear how the cryogenic liquid can comprise both nitrogen vapor and 100% liquid nitrogen.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 requires that the cryogenic liquid comprises 100% liquid nitrogen, however claim 11 has been amended such that the cryogenic liquid comprises cryogen in the vapor phase. It is unclear how the cryogenic liquid can be 100% liquid nitrogen and comprise cryogen in the vapor phase.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites "nitrogen vapor" it is unclear if this is the same as or different from the “cryogen in the vapor phase” as newly required in claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, it is first noted that claim 14 recites that the cryogenic liquid includes cryogen in the vapor phase. Claim 19 recites that “the cryogenic liquid comprises liquid nitrogen comprising nitrogen vapor and 70% up to 100% liquid nitrogen”. It is unclear how the cryogenic liquid can comprise both nitrogen vapor and 100% liquid nitrogen.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 requires that the cryogenic liquid comprises 100% liquid nitrogen, however claim 14 has been amended such that the cryogenic liquid comprises cryogen in the vapor phase. It is unclear how the cryogenic liquid can be 100% liquid nitrogen and comprise cryogen in the vapor phase.
Claims 2, 5, 12 and 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appolonia US 5,520,005 in view of Appolonia US 5,471,846 in view of Goseling DE 10106087 (machine translation) and in further view of Moller et al. US 7,263,842 and Clamage US 2006/0010886.
Regarding claim 1, Appolonia discloses a method of providing a desired amount of cooling to a quantity of a food product in a vessel within a given period of time comprising:
A) placing a formable food (col.2, lines 4-10) into a vessel (10);
B) feeding cryogenic liquid (substantially vapor free liquid cryogen) which is not carbon dioxide from a source thereof out of a plurality of nozzle openings (48) (Fig. 3) directly into the formable mass of food product (col. 2, lines 12-21, col. 3, lines 35-40). The food product is rotated by a pair of mixers and is rotated past the nozzle openings, wherein each nozzle opening is in direct contact with the food product and is at the interior surface of the vessel (col. 4, lines 40-60; Figure 2).
Claim 1 differs from Appolonia in the recitation that the flow rate of the cryogenic liquid is in a range of 5 to 25 pounds of liquid cryogen per minute per nozzle which is effective to provide not greater than 1,900 BTUs of refrigeration to the formable mass of food product per minute from the cryogenic liquid delivered from each nozzle.
However, it is noted that Appolonia discloses that in general the chilling can be carried out to reduce the temperature of the food product to a desired level (col. 1, lines 24-27) and Appolonia shows in the example that in order to chill an amount of meat from one temperature to another desired temperature in a desired amount of time that a certain amount of liquid nitrogen per minute is required to obtain the desired chilling, therefore Appolonia recognizes that the amount of liquid nitrogen supplied per minute to the food product is influenced by the amount of food product to be cooled, and the desired temperature change within a desired period of time (See col 5, example). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the flow rate of the cryogenic liquid per minute per nozzle and subsequently the BTUs of refrigeration per minute per nozzle including to values presently claimed in order to obtain a desired temperature change within a desired period of time for a desired amount of food product. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (MPEP 2144.05.II.A)
Additionally, Appolonia ‘846 discloses it was known in the art to supply cryogenic substance and control the amount of cryogenic substance applied to a flow rate in the range of 5 to 25 pound of liquid cryogen per minute per nozzle (col. 5, lines 36-64). Appolonia discloses that cryogenic substance is released at a rate which is dependent upon the rate at which the food product enters the food storage compartment (col. 2, lines 5-15), thus Appolonia ‘846 further provides one with motivation to modify the flow rate of Appolonia ‘005 based on the amount of food distributed including to values presently claimed.
Claim 1 differs from Appolonia in the recitation that an impeller moves the food product.
Goseling discloses a method of cooling food wherein the food is placed within an agitator vessel and discloses the agitator vessel includes an impeller engaged with a drive shaft (i.e., “having an axle” [0017-0020]); however, Goseling [0017] states the structural design of the agitator is basically arbitrary. As impellers are known to be used in agitator vessels to aid in the flow of material, the use of an impeller in the vessel of Appolonia, either in conjunction with or in lieu of the mixer blades would have been an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill, since the structural design of the agitator is basically arbitrary.
Claim 1 differs from Appolonia in the recitation that wherein the liquid is fed under conditions wherein the pressure drop encountered by the cryogenic liquid between the cryogen source and the nozzle openings is no more than 10 pounds per square inch.
Appolonia ‘846 teaches “the present invention there is provided a device for measuring the rate of flow of the food product and for automatically adjusting the rate of release of the cryogenic substance in response to the rate of flow of the food product.” (col.5, line 65-col.6, line 5). The method uses a controller to determine required pressure, amongst other parameters, and release the cryogen at the determined pressure (col.6, lines 30-65). Thus, it would have been obvious for one to ensure the method was under conditions wherein the cryogen source and release nozzle performed at the desired pressure parameter or at least within a preferred range of the desired pressure.
Moreover, Moller teaches it is desirable for a chilling process to deliver constant pressure and teaches it is known in the art for one to set and achieve desired pressure (col. 2, lines 10-45; col. 4, lines 10-55).
Though the art does not recite, “under conditions wherein the cryogenic liquid encounters a pressure drop between the cryogen source and the nozzle openings that is no more than 10 pounds per square inch”, it would have been obvious for one to ensure the source pressure and outlet nozzle did not result in a pressure drop, but were capable of delivering the set process conditions appropriately. It would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill to determine the needed processing pressure of modified Appolonia and set process conditions wherein the determined pressure is constantly met and/or met within a predetermined margin appropriate for the specific food product. Without a showing of criticality for “under conditions wherein the cryogenic liquid encounters a pressure drop between the cryogen source and the nozzle openings that is no more than 10 pounds per square inch”, the limitation would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Further regarding claim 1, the method of Appolonia (C) maintains the rate at which the formable mass of food product is moved past each nozzle opening to be sufficiently high so that the mass of food product remains formable as it is being cooled by contact with the cryogenic liquid (col. 4, lines 10-50).
Claim 1 differs from Appolonia in the recitation that the nozzle openings are specifically positioned at the angles as claimed in step C)
Clamage teaches a liquid cryogen dosing system with nozzles (Abstract) and teaches the liquid nitrogen is supplied through a flexible conduit “so that the position and tilt of dosing head 106 may be adjusted in the field without changing the position or attitude of the liquid nitrogen reservoir” ([0031]). One would have been motivated to modify the invention of Appolonia by having a flexible nitrogen supply line to easily position the dosing head at an angle and opening needed to supply an appropriate amount of cryogen, as taught by Clamage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have easily optimized the needed positioning of the nozzle, as well as the move rate of the food product past the nozzle based on what was needed to arrive at the desired cooled product, in the most efficient way.
Further regarding claim 1, the method of modified Appolonia includes (D) feeding said cryogenic liquid into said food product in accordance with steps (B) and (C) from a sufficient number of said nozzle openings to provide the desired amount of cooling to the quantity of food product within the given period of time while avoiding freezing of the food product in the vessel (col. 5, lines 1-20). While Appolonia does disclose the food product may be frozen, Appolonia explicitly states, “In one aspect of the present invention, there is provided an apparatus and method for reducing the temperature of soft solid and liquid materials such as foodstuffs comprising removing cool vapor from a liquid cryogen such as liquid nitrogen, and then injecting the resulting substantially vapor-free liquid cryogen into a vessel containing the foodstuffs below the level of the foodstuffs.” (col. 2, lines 13-15). Thus, Appolonia broadly teaches a reduced temperature and frozen.
Regarding the remaining limitation that the cryogen includes cryogen in the vapor phase and the cryogenic liquid is fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings without separating the cryogen in the vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid, Appolonia discloses “injecting the substantially vapor fee liquid cryogen into a vessel containing the foodstuffs” (col. 2, lines 12-22) and “substantially vapor free liquid cryogen” implies that some vapor can be present when the liquid cryogen is fed out of the plurality of nozzle openings (openings 48 of 20 at the vessel) (Fig. 3, col. 3, lines 35-39, col. 4, lines 60-67). It is noted that the source of the cryogen and vapor has been interpreted as the entrance to the nozzle 20 (see Fig. 2), and there is no separation of the cryogen in the vapor phase from the liquid cryogen as the cryogenic liquid including cryogen in the vapor phase travels through the length of 20 to the nozzle openings (48) (Figs.2-3). As such, Appolonia is seen to teach that the substantially vapor free liquid cryogen that is injected into the vessel has been fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings (48) without separating the cryogen in the vapor phase (vapor that is present in the substantially vapor free liquid cryogen) from the cryogenic liquid.
Claims 4, 11, and 14 are rejected for the same reasons given above as for claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 13, 16, claims 1 and 4 are applied as stated above. Appolonia further discloses wherein intermittently the flow of cryogenic liquid out of the nozzles is interrupted by flowing nontoxic gas out of the nozzles into the food product (col. 3, lines 50-65).
Regarding claims 7, 9, 17, 19, claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 are applied as stated above. Appolonia teaches, “removing cool vapor from a liquid cryogen such as liquid nitrogen, and then injecting the resulting substantially vapor-free liquid cryogen into a vessel” (col. 2, line 15). Given that “substantially vapor-free” implies the presence of some vapor, as opposed to “completely vapor-free” or just “vapor-free”, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonable assume that Appolonia discloses wherein the cryogenic liquid comprises liquid nitrogen comprising nitrogen vapor and 70% up to 100% liquid nitrogen.
Regarding claims 8, 10, 18, 20, claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 are applied as stated above. Appolonia teaches, “removing cool vapor from a liquid cryogen such as liquid nitrogen, and then injecting the resulting substantially vapor-free liquid cryogen into a vessel” (col. 2, line 15). While it is noted that “substantially vapor-free” implies the presence of very little vapor, there would only be a slight difference between the claimed 100% and “substantially” 100%. Applicant is reminded that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)” (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Appolonia ‘005 in view of Appolonia ‘846, Goseling, Moller and Clamage does not teach or suggest “the cryogenic liquid is fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings without separating the cryogen in vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid” as recited in amended claims 1, 4, 11 and 14.
This argument has not been found persuasive. Regarding the limitation that the cryogen includes cryogen in the vapor phase and the cryogenic liquid is fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings without separating the cryogen in the vapor phase from the cryogenic liquid, after further consideration of the teachings of Appolonia, it is noted that Appolonia discloses “injecting the substantially vapor fee liquid cryogen into a vessel containing the foodstuffs” (col. 2, lines 12-22) and “substantially vapor free liquid cryogen” implies that some vapor can be present when the liquid cryogen is fed out of the plurality of nozzle openings (openings 48 of 20 at the vessel) (Fig. 3). It is also noted that the location of the source of the cryogenic liquid and cryogenic in the vapor phase has not been specifically specified in the claims and in this case the source of the liquid cryogen and cryogen in the vapor phase has been interpreted as immediately before the entrance to the nozzle 20 (see Fig. 2), and there is no separation of the cryogen in the vapor phase from the liquid cryogen as the cryogenic liquid including cryogen in the vapor phase travels through the length of 20 to the nozzle openings (48) (Figs.2-3). As such, Appolonia is seen to teach that the substantially vapor free liquid cryogen that is injected into the vessel has been fed from the source to the plurality of nozzle openings (48) without separating the cryogen in the vapor phase (vapor that is present in the substantially vapor free liquid cryogen) from the cryogenic liquid. Therefore, the separation discussed by Applicant in the remarks is happening before the step of feeding cryogenic liquid including cryogen in the vapor phase from the source to a plurality of nozzle openings and therefore no separation occurs during the claimed period and as such Appolonia reads on the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at 571-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792