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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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, 3-4, 7, 26, 29, 31-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas Jr. et al. (5863584) in view of Dombrow (US223168), Watts et al. (US2018/0148209), Brennan et al. (US2017/0156392) Man et al. (US7887641), Andreoli et al. (WO2018/160218A1) and further in view of Terhune (2609085).
Claims 1, 7, 26, 38 are being interpreted as controlling the short-term treatment by increasing or decreasing the pH. It also appears that the claims are read broadly on applying a solution and adjusting the solution based on the composition, time and pH. The examiner argues that adjusting the processing parameters are neither novel nor unobvious for the reasons presented above.
Thomas Jr. et al. teach a method for treating produce to remove debris and inhibit growth of fungus on the produce, by treating the produce by immersion in a dump tank 12, spraying with chlorine dioxide with spray bar 60, rinsing with spray bar 90 and drying (element 92; Fig. 1). In reference to controlling the application of the short-term wash treatment, Thomas teaches monitoring the pH of the process water and maintaining the pH of the process water below a pH of 11 (col. 1, lines 60-65, col. 2, lines 1-30). Specifically, Thomas teaches maintaining the pH between about 2 (col. 3, lines 20-25). Col. 4, further teaches a flow meter 70 and a controller 72 operable for signaling a first pump and a second pump to control the concentration of chlorine dioxide solution (col. 4, lines 25-35). In reference to claims 1, 26, 33-34, Thomas Jr. et al. teach applying a short-term wash treatment to the produce where in the short-term wash treatment is a solution (i.e. chlorine dioxide solution) based on the composition. In reference to the intensity based on the concentration and time of the treatment, refer to col. 2, lines 5-30 of Thomas teaches the chlorine dioxide solution is present in the process water in an amount sufficient to clean substantially all the debris, with concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 10ppm and further teaches a contact time of at least about 30 seconds. The examiner argues that applicant’s claim limitations are so broad that it reads on adjusting the concentration of the cleaning solution and contact time in order to control the short-term treatment such that sufficient cleaning is achieved.
Re claims 1, 26 and 38, Thomas teaches adjusting the chlorine dioxide concentration. Thomas teaches contact times but does not specifically teach adjusting the contact times based on the solution. The examiner argues that, in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan within the cleaning arts, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the contact times depending upon various factors, including the substrate being cleaned, the concentration of the solution, the type and an amount of contaminants present on the substrate surface. Alternatively, Dombrow teaches a method of cleaning produce comprising treating the produce with a solution, wherein the time of the washing is based upon the fruit or vegetable being treated and by the temperature and concentration of the solution being employed (col. 2, lines 30-40). Specifically, Dombrow teaches adjusting processing parameters such as concentration, temperature, and contact times, until the desired level of cleanliness has been achieved. 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 method of Thomas, to include adjusting the contacting times, based on the concentration of the washing solution, as taught by Dombrow, for purposes of performing the same function of achieving the desired level of cleanliness.
Re claims 1, 26 and 38, Thomas Jr. et al. in view of Dombrow teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of a sensor for determining the presence of the produce on a feed belt. Watts et al. teach systems for sterilizing food items, and further teaches a conveyor belt 108 and a proximity sensor 700 (Fig. 7) which detects the presence and shape of the food item (paragraphs 52, 55), wherein the information obtained by the proximity sensor is used to control various aspects of the treatment of the food item.
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 modified method of Thomas et al., to include a proximity sensor, as taught by Watts et al. for purposes of detecting the presence of the item, wherein information from the sensor changes the processing parameters during treatment of the object.
Re claims 1, 26 and 38, Thomas Jr. et al. in view of Dombrow and Watts et al. teach sensors for controlling processing parameters, such a proximity sensor, but fails to teach reducing the intensity of the wash treatment based on the processing parameters. Paragraph 79 of Brennan et al. teach with regard to how the wash treatment is applied, several operating parameters are controlled, which include feed rate. Brennan et al. teach that these processing parameters are all interrelated depending upon the type of equipment being used. Brennan et al. further teaches that slicer/dicer wash device, the wash treatment is varied depending upon the feed rate and treatment time. Specifically, the treatment being applied is dependent upon controlling these operating parameters. 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 modified method of Thomas Jr. et al. to include adjusting the intensity of the wash treatment based on various operating parameters such as feed rate, treatment time, as taught by Brennan et al.
The prior art clearly teaches using sensors to detect parameters, such as a proximity sensor, as taught by Watts et al. The prior art further teaches it is well known to control these parameters, as the parameters are interrelated to the overall treatment being applied, as taught by Brennan. Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of the skilled artisan to detect the parameters, using sensors, and further adjust the wash treatment by monitoring the operating parameters. Applicant has not distinguished how the above teachings, especially that of Brennan et al., differs from the claimed invention.
Re claims 1, 26 and 38, in reference to increasing the pH, refer to col. 6, lines 20-30. Additionally, the pH is increased or decreased in response to monitoring the pH of the process water by pH probe 38 (col. 5, lines 60-65). Specifically, the pH is increased or decreased based on the determination of the first sensor (i.e. pH probe 38). Re claims 1 and 26, Thomas Jr. et al. in view of Dombrow, Watts et al. and Brennan et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of increasing the pH with a salt of a weak acid. Thomas teaches using a pH boosting agent such as sodium hydroxide, but fails to teach the weak acid salts. Man et al. teach an alkali cleaning composition, comprising a pH adjusting agent as providing a source of alkalinity, examples include hydroxides (col. 11, lines 4-50) and weak acid salts for washing food products (col. 21, lines 1-35). 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 modified method of Thomas to include equivalent pH adjusting agents, such as weak acid salts, as taught by Man et al., for purposes of performing the same function of washing food products.
Thomas Jr. et al. in view of Dombrow, Watts et al., Brennan et al. and Man et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of stopping the conveyor belt by controlling a relay when the pH is out of a predetermined range. Andreoli et al. teach a method for monitoring the conveyor surface with at least one sensor configured to sense a condition on the conveyor surface. Paragraph 58 teaches when there is a change in the pH, detected by one or more sensors, the sensors relay the signal to the CPU to effectuate a conveyor operating process. Paragraph 60 teaches the conveyor system can actively monitor conveying surfaces in order to deal with any potential issues that may cause any catastrophic failures that require extensive system shutdown or maintenance.
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 modified method of Thomas et al. to include controlling a conveyor when there is a change in pH, as taught by Andreoli et al., for purposes of dealing with any potential issues that may cause any failures that require extensive system shutdown or maintenance.
Thomas Jr. et al. in view of Dombrow, Watts et al., Brennan et al., Man et al. and Andreoli et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of stopping the feed belt by controlling a relay. Terhune teaches a control system for a conveyor comprising a plurality of drive units comprising relay switches (col. 4, lines 1-5 and 7-8 bridging). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Thomas Jr. et al., to include relay switches, as taught by Terhune, for purposes of controlling the conveyor belt by controlling the drive units of the conveyor belt.
Re claim 3, Thomas teaches a monitoring the pH prior to increasing the pH of the short-term wash treatment (col. 5-6 bridging). Additionally, Thomas teaches a flow meter 70 that is operable for transmitting flow rate information to the controller 72 for operation of the pumps. Re claim 4, Thomas et al. in view of Dombrow do not specifically teach the pH of 2.1 and increasing the pH to 2.5. However, it would have been well within the level of the skill artisan to adjust the pH from 2.1 to 2.5 since Thomas teaches a pH probe that monitors the pH of the process water and a controller that determines whether to increase or decrease the pH to a pH value to below 11, preferably about 2 (col. 1, lines 60-65, col. 2, lines 20-25, col. 5, lines 60-65, col. 6, lines 1-30). Col. 5, lines 20-30 teaches increasing the pH of the process water by activating pump 46 which supplies a pH boosting agent comprising sodium hydroxide, sodium gluconate, and water.
Re claim 7, in reference to decreasing the pH, refer to col. 6, lines 9-20. Re claims 29 and 36, Brennan et al. teach washing produce with various solutions including an acidulant (i.e. lactic acid) and polyol (glycerin; paragraphs 19-20), or alternatively lactic acid and silver ions (paragraph 23), in order to remove debris and soiling from the produce. Paragraph 6 teaches it is well known to wash produce with chlorine dioxide. 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 modified method of Thomas Jr. et al., to include a silver ion solution, such as silver dihydrogen citrate, as taught by Brennan et al., for purposes of providing equivalent sanitizing solutions for performing the same function. Re claim 31, refer to paragraph 20 of Brennan et al. Re claims 32 and 36, refer to paragraph 61 of Brennan et al. Re claim 35, refer to paragraph 21 of Brennan et al. Re claim 37, refer to col. 5, lines 25-30.
Claims 8, 30, and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas Jr. et al. (5863584) in view of Dombrow (US223168), Watts et al. (US2018/0148209), Brennan et al. (US2017/0156392), Man et al. (US7887641), Andreoli et al. (WO2018/160218A1), Terhune (2609085) and further in view of McEntire, Jr. et al. (US2015/0156392).
Re claims 8, 39-40, Thomas Jr. et al., in view of Dombrow, Watts et al., Brennan et al., Man et al., Andreoli et al., and Terhune teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of a sensor for detecting the speed of a product feed belt and a sensor indicating the cutter is active. McEntire et al. teach a disinfecting conveyor system for disinfecting freshly cut produce. Fig. 2 and paragraph 17 teach a control system for detecting the conveyor speed, cutter head operation, concentration of the sanitizing solution and other processing parameters during treatment of the produce such that the desired disinfecting treatment is achieved.
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 modified method of Thomas Jr. et al., to include sensors for detecting the cutter operation and the speed of the conveyor belt, as taught by McEntire et al. for purposes of changing the processing parameters during treatment of the object, such that the desired level of cleanliness is achieved.
Re claim 30, refer to the teachings of McEntire et al. which teaches using the controller to monitor the sprayer head operation and pump speed which would include the flow rate. Applicant is also directed to paragraphs 10 and 17 of McEntire et al. which teaches monitoring the flow rate.
Claims 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas Jr. et al. (5863584) in view of Dombrow (US223168), Watts et al. (US2018/0148209), Brennan et al. (US2017/0156392), Man et al. (US7887641), Andreoli et al. (WO2018/160218A1), Terhune (2609085) and further evidenced by Smith (US2296121).
Thomas Jr. et al. in view of Dombrow, Watts et al., Brennan et al., Man et al., Andreoli et al., and Terhune teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of sodium lactate and sodium acetate. Smith is relied upon to teach that weak acids and their water-soluble salts include such compounds as lactic and acetic acid. 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 modified method of Thomas Jr. et al. to include conventional weak acids and their salts, including sodium lactate and sodium acetate, as taught by Smith.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the newly amended limitations.
The rejection of claims as being unpatentable over Thomas Jr. et al. in view of the secondary references are maintained for the reasons recited above. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the newly amended limitations, directed to a relay switch for controlling the conveyor belt. In view of Applicant’s arguments, the secondary reference of Terhune is relied upon to teach a relay switch for controlling the conveyor belts, the concept of which is known, as further evidenced by Schachinger et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc