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 Status
Claims 1, 2, and 4-26 are currently pending.
In view of the appeal brief filed on 07/10/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/KAJ K OLSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
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, 2, and 4-26 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.
Claims 1, 12 and 24 recites “the hot water is greater than 120°F”. This limitation has not been located in the instant specification. Applicant’s specification discloses “Water in the range of 90°F to 160°F can be effective. Water in the range of 120°F to 150°F may be preferred” [0071]. While applicant’s specification reasonably conveys to one skilled in the art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention wherein the water is at a temperature in a range from 90°F to 160°F. The specification does not show that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention wherein the water temperature is greater or equal of 161°F. Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 24 seem to introduce new matter.
Claims 2, and 4-11, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as their dependency from a base claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0202659 to Sekiguchi et al. (hereinafter “Sekiguchi”) in view of DE102015209354 to Jackisch (hereinafter “Jackisch”), and US 2020/0238347 to Hinck (hereinafter “Hinck”), and in further view of WO 2015102534 to Kong et al. (hereinafter “Kong”).
Regarding claim 1, Sekiguchi teaches a method for cleaning an immersion tank comprising the steps of enclosing an interior volume of the immersion tank (cover, figure 1, #23 encloses the interior surface of the tank, see figure 1), and supplying high-temperature water to the interior surfaces of the tank through a plurality of nozzles [0034-0036] (reads on “increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank”). In addition, Sekiguchi teaches that a CIP cleaning is performed to the interior surfaces of the tank [0035-0036], and that the high-temperature water is used as wash water for CIP cleaning that is performed [0034], and that the high-temperature water can be sprayed into the interior of the tank when the CIP cleaning is performed [0036]. Moreover, Sekiguchi teaches that stains such as fat from the poultry can be present in the system [0020]. Furthermore, Sekiguchi teaches that the high-temperature water can be sprayed to the interior surfaces to the tank through the diffusion nozzles (figure 1, #40 or #36).
Sekiguchi does not teach that the step of increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank soften or melt fats on interior surfaces of the immersion tank, wherein increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank comprises spraying hot water through the nozzles into the interior volume of the tank at a temperature greater than 120°F, and the steps of halting the spraying of hot water through the nozzles, then applying a foaming cleaning solution to the interior surfaces of the immersion tank, and rinsing the cleaning solution and soil off the interior surfaces of the immersion tank, and resuming the spraying hot water through nozzles onto the interior surfaces, wherein the hot water is in the range of 90°F to 160°F.
However, Jackisch teaches a CIP cleaning method for the internal cleaning of at least one container of a food processing plant comprising the steps of pre-rinsing the container with water (English translation, page 6, lines 18-20), applying a foam cleaning solution to the inner wall of the container (English translation, page 1, lines 29-30), and rinsing the foam cleaning solution with water (English translation, page 2, lines 32-33, and page 5, lines 31-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi wherein the CIP cleaning comprises the steps of pre-rinsing the tank with water, applying foaming cleaning solution to the interior surfaces of the tank, and rinsing the cleaning solution and soil off the interior surfaces of the tank by spraying water through nozzles onto the interior surfaces, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Jackisch teaches that a CIP cleaning method comprising the steps of pre-rinsing the container with water, applying a foam cleaning solution to the inner wall of the container, and rinsing the container with water to remove the cleaning solution out of the container is effective for cleaning containers, and that the use of a cleaning foam has the advantage that with smaller amounts of cleaning medium a longer exposure time can be achieved, so that lower cleaning costs and shorter cleaning times can be achieved (English translation, page 1, lines 29-33, page 2, lines 32-33, and page 6, lines 18-20).
Sekiguchi/Jackisch does not teach that the rinsing water is hot water in the range of 90°F to 160°F.
Hinck teaches a method for cleaning containers (abstract), comprising the step of spraying hot water at a temperature from about 160°F to 180°F for efficiently rinsing the container after the completion of a cleaning process [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch wherein the rinsing water is hot water at a temperature of 160°F, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hinck teaches that spraying hot water at a temperature from about 160°F to 180°F is effective for rinsing a container after the completion of a cleaning process ([0054] of Hinck). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck by halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of allowing the foaming cleaning solution to contact the interior surfaces of the container to be cleaned, and then removing the foaming cleaning solution from the container as disclosed by Jackisch/Hinck (English translation, page 2, lines 32-33 of Jackisch, and [0054] of Hinck).
Furthermore, it is noted that there are only four possibilities: a) halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, b) not halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed and spraying hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, c) halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and not resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, and d) not halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and not resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck method with the step of halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck does not teach that the step of increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank soften or melt fats on interior surfaces of the immersion tank, wherein increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank comprises spraying hot water through the nozzles into the interior volume of the tank at a temperature greater than 120°F.
However, it was known in the art to use water at a temperature greater than 120°F in a cleaning process. For example, Kong teaches a method for removing food debris including grease from a cart, wherein the method comprises the use of water at a temperature of 50°C (122°F) [0039]. Kong further teaches that the cleaning method does not require to raise the temperature of the water above 72°C for dissolving grease or killing germs effectively [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck wherein increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank comprises spraying the high temperature water through the nozzles into the interior volume of the tank at a temperature of 50°C (122°F), with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sekiguchi teaches that the high-temperature water can be sprayed into the interior of the tank ([0036] of Sekiguchi), and that stains such as fat from the poultry can be present in the system ([0020] of Sekiguchi), and Kong teaches that it was known in the art to use of water at a temperature of 50°C (122°F) in a cleaning process, and that the cleaning process does not require to raise the temperature of the water above 72°C (161.6°F) for dissolving grease or killing germs effectively ([0039] of Kong). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, since the processing conditions disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong are similar to those instantly claimed, it would be reasonably expected that the step of increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank soften or melt fats present on interior surfaces of the immersion tank as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong further teaches that the inspection holes (figure 1, #22 of Sekiguchi) which have access to the interior of the tank are closed with a cover (figure 1, #23 of Sekiguchi) during the operation of the system ([0033] of Sekiguchi) (reads on “substantially enclosing an interior volume of the immersion tank comprises closing hoods and/or covers over an upper opening of the immersion tank”).
Regarding claim 4, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach that applying the foaming cleaning solution to the interior surfaces of the immersion tank comprises dispensing the cleaning solution through the nozzles onto the interior surfaces of the immersion tank.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the foaming cleaning solution to the interior surfaces of the immersion tank through the nozzles (figure 1, #36 or 40 of Sekiguchi) disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong with a reasonable expectation of success, since Jackisch teaches that it was known in the art to deliver water and foaming cleaning solution into of the tank to be cleaned through the same supply conduit and inlet (figure 1, and English translation page 5, lines 31-33 of Jackisch).
Regarding claim 5, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach that the nozzles are arranged such that the foaming cleaning solution is applied to substantially all of the interior surfaces of the immersion tank.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong wherein the nozzles are arranged such that the foaming cleaning solution is applied to all of the interior surfaces of the immersion tank, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that all of the interior surfaces of the immersion tank are sprayed and cleaned with the foaming cleaning solution, improving the efficiency of the cleaning method.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong teaches that rinsing the foaming cleaning solution and soil off the interior surfaces of the immersion tank comprises spraying water through the nozzles onto the interior surfaces of the immersion tank (figure 1, and English translation, page 2, lines 32-33, and page 5, lines 31-33 of Jackisch).
Regarding claim 7, Sekiguchi further teaches that the immersion tank comprises a feeding device (figure 1, #14 of Sekiguchi) composed of a rotating shaft arranged in a longitudinal direction of the tank, wherein spirals screw vanes (figure 1, #18 of Sekiguchi) are provided on the outer periphery of the rotating shaft (see figure 1 of Sekiguchi) (reads on “auger”) ([0032] of Sekiguchi), and that the feeding device is adjacent to the nozzles (see figure 1 of Sekiguchi). In addition, Sekiguchi teaches that the nozzles are arranged in an axial direction of the rotating shaft at regular intervals with a smaller pitch distance than the pitch distance of the screw vanes ([0053] of Sekiguchi).
Regarding claim 8, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach that the temperature and humidity are increased in each portion of the interior volume of the immersion tank for at least two minutes before the cleaning solution is applied to interior surfaces of the immersion tank.
However, the amount of time that the temperature and humidity is increased in each portion of the interior volume of the immersion tank before the cleaning solution is applied to the interior surfaces of the immersion tank is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the amount of time that the temperature and humidity is increased in each portion of the interior volume of the immersion tank before the cleaning solution is applied to the interior surfaces of the immersion tank is too low, it risks insufficient soften or removal of contaminants from the tank, while if the amount of time that the temperature and humidity is increased in each portion of the interior volume of the immersion tank before the cleaning solution is applied to the interior surfaces of the immersion tank is too high, it wastes energy and/or time. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate amount of time that the temperature and humidity is increased in each portion of the interior volume of the immersion tank before the cleaning solution is applied to the interior surfaces of the immersion tank with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 9, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach the step of draining of the foaming cleaning solution and soil from the interior of the tank.
However, Jackisch teaches the step of draining the cleaning solution from the interior of the tank to be cleaned so they be disposed or recycled (English translation, page 5, lines 44-45 of Jackisch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong with the step of draining of the foaming cleaning solution and soil from the interior of the tank, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the accumulation of soil and cleaning solution within the tank, and/or for recycling the water and/or cleaning solution as disclosed by Jackisch (English translation, page 5, lines 44-45 of Jackisch).
Regarding claim 11, Sekiguchi further teaches that the immersion tank is a poultry chiller ([0009] of Sekiguchi).
Regarding claim 23, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not explicitly teach that the step of increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the immersion tank comprises applying heat to a wall of the tank.
However, since Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong teaches the steps of spraying water at a temperature of 50°C (122°F) ([0039] of Kong, and [0020, 0034, and 0036] of Sekiguchi) (reads on “increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the immersion tank”), it would be reasonably expected that the step of spraying hot water to the interior surfaces of the tank comprises applying heat to a wall of the tank.
Regarding claim 24, Sekiguchi teaches a method for cleaning an immersion tank comprising the steps of enclosing an interior volume of the immersion tank (cover, figure 1, #23 encloses the interior surface of the tank, see figure 1), and supplying high-temperature water to the interior surfaces of the tank through a plurality of nozzles [0034-0036]. In addition, Sekiguchi teaches that a CIP cleaning is performed to the interior surfaces of the tank [0035-0036], and that the high-temperature water is used as wash water for CIP cleaning that is performed [0034], and that the high-temperature water can be sprayed into the interior of the tank when the CIP cleaning is performed [0036]. Moreover, Sekiguchi teaches that stains such as fat from the poultry can be present in the system [0020]. Furthermore, Sekiguchi teaches that the high-temperature water can be sprayed to the interior surfaces to the tank through the diffusion nozzles (figure 1, #40 or #36).
Sekiguchi does not teach that the step of increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank soften or melt fats on interior surfaces of the immersion tank, wherein increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank comprises spraying hot water through the nozzles into the interior volume of the tank at a temperature greater than 120°F, and the steps of halting the spraying of hot water through the nozzles, then applying a cleaning solution to the interior surfaces of the immersion tank, and then rinsing the cleaning solution and soil off the interior surfaces of the tank by resuming the spraying of hot water through the nozzles onto the interior surfaces, wherein the hot water is in the range of 90°F to 160°F.
However, Jackisch teaches a CIP cleaning method for the internal cleaning of at least one container of a food processing plant comprising the steps of pre-rinsing the container with water (English translation, page 6, lines 18-20), applying a foam cleaning solution to the inner wall of the container (English translation, page 1, lines 29-30), and rinsing the foam cleaning solution with water (English translation, page 2, lines 32-33, and page 5, lines 31-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi wherein the CIP cleaning comprises the steps of pre-rinsing the tank with water, applying a foaming cleaning solution to the interior surfaces of the tank, and rinsing the cleaning solution and soil off the interior surfaces of the tank by spraying water through nozzles onto the interior surfaces, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Jackisch teaches that a CIP cleaning method comprising the steps of pre-rinsing the container with water, applying a foam cleaning solution to the inner wall of the container, and rinsing the container with water to remove the cleaning solution out of the container is effective for cleaning containers, and that the use of a cleaning foam has the advantage that with smaller amounts of cleaning medium a longer exposure time can be achieved, so that lower cleaning costs and shorter cleaning times can be achieved (English translation, page 1, lines 29-33, page 2, lines 32-33, and page 6, lines 18-20).
Sekiguchi/Jackisch does not teach that the rinsing water is hot water in the range of 90°F to 160°F.
Hinck teaches a method for cleaning containers (abstract), comprising the step of spraying hot water at a temperature from about 160°F to 180°F for efficiently rinsing the container after the completion of a cleaning process [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch wherein the rinsing water is hot water at a temperature of 160°F, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hinck teaches that spraying hot water at a temperature from about 160°F to 180°F is effective for rinsing a container after the completion of the cleaning process ([0054] of Hinck). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck by halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of allowing the foaming cleaning solution to contact the interior surfaces of the container to be cleaned, and then removing the foaming cleaning solution from the container as disclosed by Jackisch/Hinck (English translation, page 2, lines 32-33 of Jackisch, and [0054] of Hinck).
Furthermore, it is noted that there are only four possibilities: a) halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, b) not halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed and spraying hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, c) halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and not resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, and d) not halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and not resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck method with the step of halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck does not teach that the step of increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank soften or melt fats on interior surfaces of the immersion tank, wherein increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank comprises spraying the high temperature water through the nozzles into the interior volume of the tank at a temperature greater than 120°F.
However, it was known in the art to use water at a temperature greater than 120°F in a cleaning process. For example, Kong teaches a method for removing food debris including grease from a cart, wherein the method comprises the use of water at a temperature of 50°C (122°F) [0039]. Kong further teaches that the cleaning method does not require to raise the temperature of the water above 72°C for dissolving grease or killing germs effectively [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck wherein increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank comprises spraying the high temperature water through the nozzles into the interior volume of the tank at a temperature of 50°C (122°F), with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sekiguchi teaches that the high-temperature water can be sprayed into the interior of the tank ([0036] of Sekiguchi), and that stains such as fat from the poultry can be present in the system ([0020] of Sekiguchi), and Kong teaches that it was known in the art to use of water at a temperature of 50°C (122°F) in a cleaning process, and that the cleaning process does not require to raise the temperature of the water above 72°C (161.6°F) for dissolving grease or killing germs effectively ([0039] of Kong). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, since the processing conditions disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong are similar to those instantly claimed, it would be reasonably expected that the step of increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the tank soften or melt fats present on interior surfaces of the immersion tank as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 25, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach that increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the immersion tank comprises increasing the temperature in the interior volume to at least 90°F.
However, the temperature in the interior of the immersion tank is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the temperature in the interior of the immersion tank is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants, while if the temperature in the interior of the immersion tank is too high, it wastes energy. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate temperature in the interior of the immersion tank with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 26, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach that a time between a beginning of the increasing the temperature step and a beginning of the applying step is at least two minutes.
However, the time between the beginning of the increasing the temperature step and the beginning of the applying step is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the time between the beginning of the increasing the temperature step and the beginning of the applying step is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants, while if the time between the beginning of the increasing the temperature step and the beginning of the applying step is too high, it wastes time. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate time between the beginning of the increasing the temperature step and the beginning of the applying step with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 12, Sekiguchi teaches a system for cleaning an immersion tank (figure 1, #12), wherein the immersion tank defines an interior volume and an upper opening (inspection holes, figure 1, #22) in communication with the interior volume, a cover (figure 1, #23) configured to cover the upper opening (inspection holes, figure 1, #22) to enclose the interior volume [0033] (see figure 1), and a plurality of nozzles (figure 1, #40 or #36) (reads on “at least one nozzle”) configured to supply a high-temperature water to the interior surface of the tank [0034-0036] (reads on “increase the temperature and humidity in the interior volume”). In addition, Sekiguchi teaches that that the system performs a CIP cleaning to the interior surfaces of the tank [0035-0036], and that the high-temperature water can be used as wash water for the CIP cleaning that is performed [0034], and that the high-temperature water can be sprayed into the interior of the tank when the CIP cleaning is performed [0036]. Moreover, Sekiguchi teaches that stains such as fat from the poultry can be present in the system [0020]. Furthermore, Sekiguchi teaches that the high-temperature water can be sprayed to the interior surfaces to the tank through the diffusion nozzles (figure 1, #40 or #36).
Sekiguchi does not teach that at least one nozzle is configured to spray the high temperate water into the interior volume to soften or melt fats on interior surfaces of the tank, wherein the hot water is greater than 120°F, then halt the spray of hot water, then disperse cleaning solution onto the interior surfaces of the immersion tank, and then resume the spray of hot water onto the interior surfaces of the immersion tank to remove the cleaning solution and soil therefrom, wherein the hot water is in the range of 90°F to 160°F.
However, Jackisch teaches a system for performing a CIP for the internal cleaning of at least one container of a food processing plant comprising a spray nozzle for spraying water into the container in a pre-rinsing step (English translation, page 6, lines 18-20), spraying a foam cleaning solution to the inner wall of the container (English translation, page 1, lines 29-30), and spraying water in a rinsing step (English translation, page 2, lines 32-33, and page 5, lines 31-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi wherein the at least nozzle is configured to spray water in a pre-rinse step, spray a cleaning solution onto the interior surfaces of the immersion tank, and spray water in a rinsing step, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Jackisch teaches that a system comprising a spray nozzle for spraying water into the container in a pre-rinsing step (English translation, page 6, lines 18-20), spraying a foam cleaning solution to the inner wall of the container (English translation, page 1, lines 29-30), and spraying water in a rinsing step (English translation, page 2, lines 32-33, and page 5, lines 31-33) is effective for performing a CIP cleaning of a container.
Sekiguchi/Jackisch does not teach that the rinsing step comprises spraying hot water in a range of 90°F to 160°F.
Hinck teaches a system for cleaning containers (abstract), including the spraying of hot water at a temperature from about 160°F to 180°F for efficiently rinsing the container after the completion of the cleaning process [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch wherein the rinsing water is hot water at a temperature of 160°F, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hinck teaches that spraying hot water at a temperature from about 160°F to 180°F is effective for rinsing a container after the completion of the cleaning process ([0054] of Hinck). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck by halting the spray of hot water before the foaming cleaning solution is dispensed, and resuming the spraying of hot water after the foaming cleaning solution has been dispensed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of allowing the foaming cleaning solution to contact the interior surfaces of the container to be cleaned, and then removing the foaming cleaning solution from the container as disclosed by Jackisch/Hinck (English translation, page 2, lines 32-33 of Jackisch, and [0054] of Hinck).
Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck does not teach that the that the at least one nozzle is configured to spraying the high temperature water into the interior volume to soften or melt fats on interior surfaces of the tank, wherein the hot water is greater than 120°F.
However, it was known in the art to use water at a temperature greater than 120°F in a cleaning system. For example, Kong teaches a cleaning system for removing food debris including grease from a cart, wherein the system comprises using water at a temperature of 50°C (122°F) [0039]. Kong further teaches that the cleaning system does not require to raise the temperature of the water above 72°C for dissolving grease or killing germs effectively [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck wherein the at least one nozzle is configured to spraying the high temperature water into the interior volume to soften or melt fats on interior surfaces of the tank, wherein the hot water is at a temperature of 50°C (122°F), with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sekiguchi teaches that the high-temperature water can be sprayed into the interior of the tank ([0036] of Sekiguchi), and that stains such as fat from the poultry can be present in the system ([0020] of Sekiguchi), and Kong teaches that it was known in the art to use of water at a temperature of 50°C (122°F) in a cleaning process, and that the cleaning process does not require to raise the temperature of the water above 72°C (161.6°F) for dissolving grease or killing germs effectively ([0039] of Kong). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Sekiguchi further teaches that at least one diffusion nozzle is arranged in an axial direction of the rotating shaft at regular intervals with a smaller pitch distance than the pitch distance of the screw vanes ([0053] of Sekiguchi), and that in place of a spherical diffusion nozzle a rotary cleaning nozzle may be used in which one or more nozzles rotates ([0060] of Sekiguchi).
Regarding claim 21, Sekiguchi further teaches that the immersion tank is a poultry chiller ([0009] of Sekiguchi).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0202659 to Sekiguchi et al. (hereinafter “Sekiguchi”) in view of DE102015209354 to Jackisch (hereinafter “Jackisch”), US 2020/0238347 to Hinck (hereinafter “Hinck”), and WO 2015102534 to Kong et al. (hereinafter “Kong”), and in further view US 2017/0173199 to Agmont E Silva (hereinafter “Agmont”).
Regarding claim 22, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach that increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the immersion tank comprises injecting steam into the interior volume of the immersion tank.
However, it was known in the art that steam can be used for heating and humidifying an interior volume. For example, Agmont teaches a method for cleaning a tank [0001] and discloses that heat can be transferred to a surface using steam or hot water [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong wherein the step of increasing the temperature and humidity in the interior volume of the immersion tank comprises injecting steam into the interior volume of the immersion tank with a reasonable expectation of success, since Agmont teaches that the use of steam or hot water is effective for heating a surface ([0041] of Agmont).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0202659 to Sekiguchi et al. (hereinafter “Sekiguchi”) in view of DE102015209354 to Jackisch (hereinafter “Jackisch”), US 2020/0238347 to Hinck (hereinafter “Hinck”), and WO 2015102534 to Kong et al. (hereinafter “Kong”), and in further view of US 5,301,702 to McKinney (hereinafter “McKinney”).
Regarding claim 14, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach that each nozzle cluster comprises a primary pipe with an inlet, a first secondary pipe extending laterally away from a first side of the primary pipe, a second secondary pipe extending laterally away from a second, opposite side of the primary pipe, a first nozzle at the end of the first secondary pipe and a second nozzle at the end of the second secondary pipe, wherein the nozzle cluster is positioned such that the first nozzle is adjacent a first side of the upper opening and the second nozzle is adjacent a second, opposite side of the upper opening.
However, McKinney teaches a system for cleaning a tank comprising a nozzle assembly comprising a primary pipe (central manifold, figure 3, #64 and 56) with an inlet (see figure 3), a first secondary pipe (figure 3, #66 and 94) extending laterally away from a first side of the primary pipe (see figure 3), a second secondary pipe (figure 3, #66 and 94) extending laterally away from a second, opposite side of the primary pipe (see figure 3), a first nozzle (figure 3, #92) at the end of the first secondary pipe and a second nozzle (figure 3, #92) at the end of the second secondary pipe (column 4, lines 54-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong wherein each nozzle cluster comprises a primary pipe with an inlet, a first secondary pipe extending laterally away from a first side of the primary pipe, a second secondary pipe extending laterally away from a second, opposite side of the primary pipe, a first nozzle at the end of the first secondary pipe and a second nozzle at the end of the second secondary pipe as taught by McKinney, since McKinney teaches that the nozzle arrangement is effective for cleaning the inside surfaces of a tank (column 3, lines 52-60).
Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong/McKinney does not explicitly teach that the nozzle is positioned such that the first nozzle is adjacent a first side of the upper opening and the second nozzle is adjacent a second, opposite side of the upper opening.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong/McKinney wherein the nozzle is rearranged such that the first nozzle is adjacent a first side of the upper opening and the second nozzle is adjacent a second, opposite side of the upper opening with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to spray different areas of the tank. In addition, the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice. Consult MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 15, Sekiguchi further teaches that the nozzles can be rotary nozzles, in which one or more nozzles rotates 360 degrees ([0061] of Sekiguchi).
Regarding claim 16, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong/McKinney does not teach a third secondary pipe extending laterally away from the second side of the primary pipe and spaced apart from the second secondary pipe, a third nozzle at the end of the third secondary pipe, wherein a first nozzle cluster is positioned such that the first nozzle is adjacent the first side of the upper opening and the second and third nozzles are adjacent the second side of the upper opening and a second nozzle cluster adjacent the first nozzle cluster is positioned such that the first nozzle is adjacent the second side of the upper opening and the second and third nozzles are adjacent the first side of the upper opening.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the second secondary pipe extending including the second nozzle at the end of the second secondary pipe with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Consult 2144.04 VI.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong/McKinney wherein the nozzle is rearranged such that that the first nozzle is adjacent the first side of the upper opening and the second and third nozzles are adjacent the second side of the upper opening and the second nozzle cluster adjacent the first nozzle cluster is positioned such that the first nozzle is adjacent the second side of the upper opening and the second and third nozzles are adjacent the first side of the upper opening, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to spray different areas of the tank. In addition, the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice. Consult MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 17, McKinney further teaches that each of the first and second secondary pipes (figure 3, #66 and 94 of McKinney) extends outwardly and downwardly from the primary pipe (see figure 3 of McKinney).
Regarding claim 18, Sekiguchi further teaches that the system comprises high-temperature water piping (figure 1, #34, 38 of Sekiguchi) (reads on “hot water header”), an on-off valve (reads on “first control valve) (figure 1, #44 of Sekiguchi) for selectively supply the high-temperature water to the nozzle cluster ([0035-0036] of Sekiguchi). In addition, Hinck teaches a CIP cleaning system comprising multiple containers (see figure 2 of Hinck) containing cleaning solutions, valves (see figure 2, #202, 204, 206 of Hinck) (reads on “secondary valve”) for controlling the flow of the solutions and a water source (figure 1, #102 of Hinck) in fluid communication with a nozzle assembly for delivering cleaning solutions and water to the nozzle assembly to clean and rinse the interior surfaces of the tank (see figure 2 of Hinck).
Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong/McKinney does not explicitly teach the high-temperature water header in fluid communication with the inlet of the primary pipe, the control valve between the high-temperature water header and the inlet of the primary pipe to selectively supply hot water to the nozzle cluster, the cleaning solution header in fluid communication with the inlet of the primary pipe, and the second control valve between the cleaning solution header and the inlet of the primary pipe to selectively supply the cleaning solution to the nozzle cluster.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong/McKinney wherein the high-temperature water header is in fluid communication with the inlet of the primary pipe, the control valve between the high-temperature water header and the inlet of the primary pipe to selectively supply hot water to the nozzle cluster, the cleaning solution header in fluid communication with the inlet of the primary pipe, and the second control valve between the cleaning solution header and the inlet of the primary pipe to selectively supply the cleaning solution to the nozzle cluster with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sekiguchi teaches that the system comprises high-temperature water piping (figure 1, #34, 38 Sekiguchi) (reads on “hot water header”), an on-off valve (reads on “first control valve) (figure 1, #44 Sekiguchi) for selectively supply the high-temperature water to the nozzle cluster ([0035-0036] Sekiguchi), and Hinck teaches a CIP cleaning system comprising multiple containers (see figure 2 of Hinck) containing cleaning solutions, valves (see figure 2, #202, 204, 206 of Hinck) for controlling the flow of the solutions and a water source (figure 1, #102 of Hinck) in fluid communication with a nozzle assembly for delivering cleaning solutions and water to the nozzle assembly to clean and rinse the interior surfaces of the tank (see figure 2 of Hinck).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0202659 to Sekiguchi et al. (hereinafter “Sekiguchi”) in view of DE102015209354 to Jackisch (hereinafter “Jackisch”), US 2020/0238347 to Hinck (hereinafter “Hinck”), and WO 2015102534 to Kong et al. (hereinafter “Kong”), and in further view of US 2016/0107207 to DesOrmeaux (hereinafter “DesOrmeaux”).
Regarding claim 10, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong teaches that the hot water can be supplied through a plurality of nozzles located within the tank ([0053] of Sekiguchi).
Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach the step of translating at least one nozzle axially along the tank, wherein the increasing, applying, and/or rinsing step are carried out using the at least one nozzle sequentially at different axial locations along the tank.
DesOrmeaux teaches a method and system for cleaning tanks [0002 and 0026] with a translating nozzle to supply a cleaning composition using the nozzle sequentially at different axial locations along the tank [0040-0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong with the step of translating at least one nozzle axially along the tank, wherein the increasing, applying, and/or rinsing steps are carried out using the at least one nozzle sequentially at different axial locations along the tank as taught by DesOrmeaux, for the purpose of cleaning different surfaces inside of the tank.
Regarding claim 19, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach that the system further comprises a rail below the one or more hoods and/or covers and a carriage connected to the rail with the at least one nozzle connected to the carriage, wherein the carriage and the nozzle are configured to travel on the rail axially along the tank to sequentially spray hot water and cleaning solution at different axial locations along the tank.
However, DesOrmeaux teaches a system for cleaning tanks [0002 and 0026] comprising a track including a rail and a carriage consisting of a first trolley unit connected to the rail, wherein the nozzles are connected to the carriage and are configured to travel axially along the tank on the rail to sequentially spray the cleaning solution at different axial locations along the tank [0041-0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong with a rail below the cover and a carriage connected to the rail with the at least one nozzle connected to the carriage, wherein the carriage and the nozzle are configured to travel on the rail axially along the tank to sequentially spray a cleaning composition (e.g., the hot water and cleaning solution) at different axial locations along the tank as taught by DesOrmeaux, for the purpose of cleaning different surfaces inside the tank.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0202659 to Sekiguchi et al. (hereinafter “Sekiguchi”) in view of DE102015209354 to Jackisch (hereinafter “Jackisch”), US 2020/0238347 to Hinck (hereinafter “Hinck”), and WO 2015102534 to Kong et al. (hereinafter “Kong”), and in further view of CH 688027 to Wyss Kurt Walter (hereinafter “CH’027”).
Regarding claim 20, Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong does not teach that the at least one nozzle is held within an at least partially spherical nozzle mount that is held in a socket, and wherein the nozzle mount is rotatable and/or translatable in the socket such that the nozzle is articulated to sequentially direct the hot water and/or cleaning solution to different interior surfaces in the interior volume of the tank.
However, CH’027 teaches a system for cleaning tanks comprising a nozzle held within an at least partially spherical nozzle mount (figure 1, #6) that is held in a socket (figure 1, #5) (see figures 1 and 2), and wherein the nozzle mount is rotatable and in the socket such that the nozzle is articulated to sequentially direct a cleaning liquid to different interior surfaces in the interior volume of the tank to be cleaned (English translation abstract and page 2 lines 25-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sekiguchi/Jackisch/Hinck/Kong wherein the at least one nozzle is held within an at least partially spherical nozzle mount that is held in a socket, wherein the nozzle mount is rotatable in the socket such that the nozzle is articulated to sequentially direct the hot water and/or cleaning solution to different interior surfaces in the interior volume of the tank as taught by CH’027, since CH’027 teaches that a system comprising a nozzle held within an at least partially spherical nozzle mount that is held in a socket, wherein the nozzle mount is rotatable in the socket such that the nozzle is articulated to sequentially direct a cleaning liquid to different interior surfaces in the interior volume of the tank to be cleaned is effective for varying the spray angle (English translation abstract and page 2 lines 25-37 of CH’027).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated 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 ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights