DETAILED ACTION
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 December 2025 has been entered.
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 – 3, and 13 – 24 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, it is unclear if the “a reduced pressure” recited in line 22 is the same as the “a reduced pressure” recited in line 13 or some other reduced pressure heretofore not recited.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how either the cover or the pan individually, that is as separate items, could have a fluid-tight seal capable of ensuring a vacuum when normally the cover would need to be covering the pan in order for any seal to be formed which would be capable of ensuring a vacuum.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8, 11, 19, and 25, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the container”.
Regarding claim 13, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the container”.
Regarding claim 15, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the container”.
Regarding claim 16, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the container”.
Regarding claim 17, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the container”.
Regarding claim 23, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the container”.
Claims 2, 3, 9 – 12, 14, 18-22, and 24 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 – 3, 9, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzolin et al. US 2016/0192694 in view of Gannon GB 2 139 595 as further evidenced by Furgal US 2,831,774 in view of ErkenBrack US 5,142,970.
Regarding claims 1 – 3 Franzolin discloses a method capable of conserving a cooked food product, wherein the cooked food product is contained inside a conservation container (preserving chamber) which container is seen to constitute a pan that would have a total volume which is partially occupied by the cooked food product and would be partially occupied by a volume of air in contact with the cooked food product. Since Franzolin discloses the pan would hold a degree of vacuum (paragraph [0036]) it is obvious that the pan would have to have a closing cover and that the cover and/or the pan would have been provided with a fluid-tight seal capable of ensuring a vacuum-tightness between the pan and the cover.
With respect to the method, in order to hold the vacuum the pan would obviously have to have been sealed with the closing cover to form a sealed container that is vacuum-tight which would obviously prevent air, and therefore oxygen and any inert gas, from being introduced into the sealed container from outside the sealed container.
A concentration of oxygen in the volume of air in the container which contains the cooked food product having a temperature between 58°C and 100°C is reduced (paragraph [0024] – [0026]) by application of a reduced pressure (vacuum) (paragraph [0036]). Franzolin discloses the partial oxygen pressure would be kept at several tens of Pa, i.e., less than 0.1%, that clearly the lower the oxygen concentration the better is the resulting preservation, (paragraph [0049]) and the pressure in the container would be brought to a value equal to the vapour pressure of the water contained in the food product (after psychrometric equilibrium has been reached the vapour pressure of the water in the food equals the partial pressure of the vapour in the preserving chamber) (paragraph [0051]) and corresponding to the temperature of said food product (paragraph [0037]).
Since the attainment of equilibrium with respect to the vapour pressure of water would take place over a duration of time it is seen that the such equilibrium would be seen to occur over a first duration of time and second duration of time, i.e., where the first time period would obviously be a duration of the application of the reduced pressure which reduces the oxygen concentration (paragraph [0036]) during the first time period and in which a pressure in the container is brought by a reduced pressure to a value equal to a vapor pressure of water contained in the cooked food product and corresponding to the temperature of the cooked food product which is seen to represent the first time period (psychrometric equilibrium has been reached) (paragraph [0051]).
Franzolin also discloses the reduced pressure condition is maintained for a second successive time period (system for restoring the initial oxygen concentration) (paragraph [0053]). Since Franzolin has disclosed the reduced pressure conditions and the maintenance thereof as claimed it is obvious that there would be a washing of the volume of air present in the container with the water contained in the cooked food product that evaporates into water vapor (paragraph [0037]) which would continuously reduce the oxygen concentration during said second successive time period as claimed, in order to maintain the concentration of oxygen reached after the duration of time. The cooked food product in the sealed container would be conserved in an apparatus for conservation in a hot state at a predetermined temperature greater than 58º C (72º C) (paragraph [0027]) for a time of not less than four hours (at least 24 hours) (paragraph [0026]). Since the cooked food of Franzolin is conserved for a time of not less than four hours in a hot state at a predetermined temperature greater than 58º C it is obvious that the container would have to be sealed.
As set forth above it is The Office’s position that since Franzolin discloses there would be a vacuum according to the oxygen concentration desired (to be obtained) (paragraph [0036]) the pan would obviously have to have been sealed with the closing cover to form a sealed container that is vacuum-tight which would obviously prevent air, and therefore oxygen and any inert gas, from being introduced into the sealed container from outside the sealed container.
In the event that claim 1 and be construed as differing from Franzolin in sealing the pan with a cover to prevent air and therefore oxygen and any inert gas from being introduced into the sealed container from outside the sealed container
Gannon discloses a method capable of conserving cooked food products (cooked meats) (page 1, ln 31) where the food products are contained inside conservation containers (rigid receptacle) (page 1, ln 16 – 23). The conservation containers are sealed with a closing cover (lid) to form a sealed container which prevents oxygen from being introduced to the sealed container (rendered airtight) from outside the sealed container (page 1, ln 29 – 21) to form a sealed container (page 1, ln 50) and a concentration of oxygen in the container is reduced by means of an ejector device to reduce the concentration of oxygen (evacuated) (page 1, ln 23) which would prevent oxygen from being introduced to the sealed container from outside the sealed container and to maintain the concentration of oxygen reached, which is to say the closing cover and the container is provided with a fluid-tight seal which is capable of ensuring vacuum-tightness between the container and the closing cover to prevent air and therefore oxygen and any inert gas from being introduced into the sealed container from outside the sealed container.
Gannon is sealing the container for the art recognized function of preventing the introduction of and as well as to maintain the concentration of oxygen reached when the oxygen concentration was reduced which would prevent air and therefore oxygen and any inert gas from being introduced into the sealed container from outside the sealed container, which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Franzolin and seal the container as taught by Gannon to maintain a reduced concentration of oxygen and prevent air and therefore oxygen and any inert gas from being introduced into the sealed container from outside the sealed container would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Furgal provides further evidence that it was well established in the art to have conserved a cooked food product under vacuum conditions and that the required temperature would have been at 58º C (137º F) (example 1).
Claim 1 differs from Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in the reduced pressure being generated by an ejector device which operates with compressed air.
Once it was known to reduce a concentration of oxygen in a container which contains a cooked food product where the temperature of the cooked food product after the cooking would be between 58º C and 100º C it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular device used to reduce the pressure. Nevertheless, ErkenBrack discloses a method capable of conserving food products where the food products are contained inside conservation containers having a total volume which would be partially occupied by the food product and partially occupied by air in contact with the food product which method comprises reducing a concentration of oxygen in a container (bag) which contains a food product by the application of a reduced pressure generated by an ejector device (Venturi-tube type) (col. 2, ln 6 – 19) which would operate with compressed air (gas forced through the first tube) (col. 2, ln 45 – 52). Therefore the substitution of one known device to generate a reduced pressure for another known device to reduce pressure, that is the ejector device of ErkenBrack, would have been obvious. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent pressure reducing device for another known pressure reducing device is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II.).
Regarding claim 9, Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack disclose the closing cover would have been provided with a valve suitable for maintaining the reduced pressure (‘595, page 1, ln 16 – 23 and 86 – 93) (‘970, col. 3, ln 24 – 40 and fig. 8). Both Gannon and ErkenBrack are providing container covers with a valve suitable for maintaining a reduced pressure to containers that were previously sealed in order to prevent re-entry of oxygen into the container once the pressure has been reduced and therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have provided the cover with a valve suitable for generating and maintaining a reduced pressure.
Regarding claim 24, Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack disclose the ejector device is supplied with compressed air generated by an air compressor (such as air) (mechanical means . . . gas compressor) (‘970, col. 14, ln 1 – 8) and does not disclose that a tank capable of holding compressed air would be present, therefore it is seen that Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack is clearly implying the ejector device would be connected directly to a supply line of an air compressor. Further, it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the presence or lack thereof of a tank capable of containing compressed air being provided. The omission of a tank capable of containing compressed air would not affect the operation of the ejector device and the elimination of said tank and thereby eliminating said tank’s function would have been an obvious expedient (MPEP § 2144.04 II.A.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzolin et al. US 2016/0192694 in view of Gannon GB 2 139 595 as further evidenced by Furgal US 2,831,774 in view of ErkenBrack US 5,142,970 in view of Klopfenstein US 5,979,889.
Claim 10 differs from Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in the ejector device being provided with an attachment of the “quick-fit” type capable of being connected to a compressed air line.
Klopfenstein discloses an ejector device (apparatus for generating a vacuum) (fig. 3) which device operates with compressed air (pressurized air) to generate a vacuum (col. 4, ln 20 – 29). Klopfenstein further discloses that it would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan to modify the ejector device (venturi tube 160) and use a quick-fit type attachment (quick-disconnect) to connect the compressed air line (col. 5, ln 41 – 44) which would allow for rapid disconnection of the air line, which is to say it would have been an obvious matter of design to have modified Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack and provide the ejector device with a quick-fit type attachment as taught by Klopfenstein.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzolin et al. US 2016/0192694 in view of Gannon GB 2 139 595 as further evidenced by Furgal US 2,831,774in view of ErkenBrack US 5,142,970 in view of Whitlock US 2,774,636 as further evidenced by Ricco US 2012/0017538.
Claims 11 and 12 differ from Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in the flow of compressed air supplied to the ejector device would have a flow which flow would be controlled by a control unit. First it is noted that where the flow of compressed air can be directly controlled manually by an operator the operator would be functioning as a control unit to control a flow of compressed air and therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to act as a manual control unit.
Nevertheless, Whitlock discloses that it was quite old, well established, and conventional in the art to control an ejector device (venturi 15) which operates with compressed air by controlling the flow of compressed air supplied to the ejector device by a control unit (control box 31) which control unit would regulate, that is control the flow of compressed air by control of a first solenoid valve (26) arranged upstream of an air intake portion (25) (col. 2, ln 61 – col. 3, ln 02). Whitlock is regulating the compressed air supplied to the ejector device by a control unit controlling a first solenoid valve in order to regulate the degree of vacuum that would be applied by an ejector device which is the applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack if required and regulate the compressed air supplied to the ejector device by a control unit controlling a first solenoid valve as taught by Whitlock would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Ricco provides further evidence that it was conventional in the art to control the flow of compressed air supplied to an ejector device with a control unit (paragraph [0014] and [0041]).
Claims 13, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzolin et al. US 2016/0192694 in view of Gannon GB 2 139 595 as further evidenced by Furgal US 2,831,774 in view of ErkenBrack US 5,142,970 in view of Skaggs US 6,017,195.
Claim 13 differs from Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in measuring of a degree of reduced pressure in the container.
Skaggs discloses a method capable of conserving food products where the food products are contained inside conservation containers (food storage container) having a total volume which would be partially occupied by the food product and partially occupied by air in contact with the food product (evacuating) (col. 4, ln 65 – col. 5, ln 1). The method comprises reducing a concentration of oxygen in a container which contains a food product by application of a reduced pressure generated by an ejector device (col. 9, ln 21 – 26) so as to reduce the concentration of oxygen (reduced pressure in the chamber (col. 7, ln 60 – 64) and seal the container which would obviously prevent the introduction of oxygen and maintain the concentration of oxygen reached therein. Skaggs further discloses the degree of reduced pressure generated in the container would be measured (create a selected vacuum) (col. 14, ln 58 – 62). Skaggs is measuring the degree of reduced pressure in the container for the art recognized function of creating a selected vacuum based on the different container/foods contained to control the preservation thereof therein which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack and measure the degree of reduced pressure in the container to create a selected vacuum as taught by Skaggs would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design for the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 14, Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs discloses the measuring of the degree of reduced pressure in the container would be carried out manually by an analogue pressure gauge which gauge is clearly shown in figure 48 of Skaggs.
Claim 23 differs from Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in the portion for drawing air into the ejector device being provided with a suction cup capable of connecting the ejector device to the container.
Skaggs discloses a method capable of conserving food products where the food products are contained inside conservation containers (food storage container) having a total volume which would be partially occupied by the food product and partially occupied by air in contact with the food product (evacuating) (col. 4, ln 65 – col. 5, ln 1). The method comprises reducing a concentration of oxygen in a container which contains a food product by application of a reduced pressure generated by an ejector device (col. 9, ln 21 – 26) so as to reduce the concentration of oxygen (reduced pressure in the chamber) (col. 7, ln 60 – 64) which would necessarily require the ejector device to have a portion capable of drawing air into the ejector device and seal the container which would obviously prevent the introduction of oxygen and maintain the concentration of oxygen reached therein. Skaggs further discloses the ejector device would be provided with a suction cup (vacuum cap 1022, recess 1110) capable of connecting the ejector device to a container (col. 17, ln 21 – 34, col. 18. Ln 2 – 7, and fig. 31 and 52). Skaggs is providing a suction cup capable of connection an ejector device to a container for the art recognized function of creating an airtight seal with the container which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack and provide the ejector device with a suction cup as taught by Skaggs to create an airtight seal would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzolin et al. US 2016/0192694 in view of Gannon GB 2 139 595 as further evidenced by Furgal US 2,831,774 in view of ErkenBrack US 5,142,970 in view of Skaggs US 6,017,195 as further evidenced by Pfeil, Jr. et al. US 5,024,061.
Regarding claim 15, once it was known to measure and control the degree of reduced pressure in the container manually it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on automating the measuring of the degree of reduced pressure to accomplish the same result (MPEP § 2144.04 III.). Further, the substitution of one known device to generate a pressure signal for another known device to measure pressure would have been obvious. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II.). In any event, as further evidenced by Pfeil it was well established in the art to employ a transducer (56) to generate a pressure signal to determine a pressure in a container (col. 5, ln 39 – 52).
Claims 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzolin et al. US 2016/0192694 in view of Gannon GB 2 139 595 as further evidenced by Furgal US 2,831,774 in view of ErkenBrack US 5,142,970 in view of Skaggs US 6,017,195 in view of Benetollo et al. EP 3 491 926.
Regarding claim 16, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs have disclosed all of the steps of the method to conserve cooked food products as claimed and therefore it would be obvious that if the duration time of the application of the reduced pressure in the container and the desired degree of reduced pressure is not reached within a predetermined time the operation, that is the method of conserving cooked food products as claimed would not have been successful if the ejector device failed to operate as it should.
In the event that claim 16 can be construed as differing from Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs in the duration time of the application of the reduced pressure in the container being predetermined and if a desired degree of reduced pressure is not reached within this time the operation of the ejector is not considered to have been successful, Benetollo discloses a method capable of conserving cooked food products where the food products would be contained inside conservation containers having a total volume which is partially occupied by the food product and partially occupied by air in contact with the food product. The method comprises reducing a concentration of oxygen in a container which contains a cooked food product in which the predetermined temperature of the cooked food product is between 58º C and 100º C by application of, that is generating a predetermined degree of reduced pressure generated by a vacuum (paragraph [0032]) to bring the concentration of oxygen to values less than 10% (less than 0.2%) (paragraph [0033]) within a predetermined duration time, that is between a first and second time (pre-set time) (paragraph [0032]), where the first time period would be time zero and the second time period would be about 30 – 90 seconds (paragraph [0054]) when a reduced pressure (vacuum) is being created in a container. Further, Benetollo discloses that of particular concern is that water vapour removal should be controlled to avoid the formation of surface defects, such as, the too rapid removal of said vapour that would result in a dry product (breaking of the crust) or the incomplete removal of water vapour (paragraph [0067]) which could result in oxidation and/or mould growth (paragraph [0072]) which is to say that Benetollo is disclosing that during the duration time of the application, that is during the application of the reduced pressure in the container a balance between the oxygen content and water vapour pressure would need to be properly achieved in order for the process to be successful. Stated somewhat differently, Benetollo is disclosing that if the proper balance between the oxygen content and water vapour pressure would not be achieved the operation would not be considered to have been successful, which would include an operation of the ejector device. To therefore modify Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs, if necessary, as taught by Benetollo to avoid the operation, that is the method of conserving cooked food products, as being considered to have not been successful based on multiple factors including an operation of the ejector device would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 16, Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs in view of Benetollo disclose the duration time for generating the reduced pressure in the container would comprise considering, i.e., predetermining a minimum temperature of the food product in the container (58º C) (paragraph [0050]), generating a predetermined degree of reduced pressure in a first predetermined time period (partial oxygen pressure . . . below 10 kPA) (‘694, paragraph [0026])and maintaining (restoring the initial oxygen concentration) the degree of reduced pressure for a second predetermined time period (‘694, paragraph [0054] – [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs in view of Benetollo have disclosed the measurement of the degree of reduced pressure in the container would be carried out manually by means of an analogue pressure gauge. Once it was known that the measurement of the degree of reduced pressure in the container would be carried out manually by means of an analogue pressure gauge it would have been obvious that the duration time for generating the reduced pressure and the second successive time period for maintaining the degree of reduced pressure would have been controlled and decided by the operator (based on a calculation) (‘694, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, once it was known to measure and control the degree of reduced pressure in the container manually it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on automating the durations of the time for generating the reduced pressure and maintaining the degree of reduced pressure during the operation of the ejector device to accomplish the same result (MPEP § 2144.04 III.). Further, Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs in view of Benetollo have disclosed the measurement of the degree of reduced pressure in the container would be carried out manually by means of an analogue pressure gauge it would have been obvious that the duration time for generating the reduced pressure and the second successive time period for maintaining the degree of reduced pressure would have been controlled and decided by the control unit (automatic) (‘694, paragraph [0055]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzolin et al. US 2016/0192694 in view of Gannon GB 2 139 595 as further evidenced by Furgal US 2,831,774 in view of ErkenBrack US 5,142,970 as further evidenced by in view of Skaggs US 6,017,195 in view of Klopfenstein US 5,979,889.
Claim 20 differs from Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs in the ejector device being provided with an attachment of a “quick-fit” type capable of being connected to a compressed air line.
Klopfenstein discloses an ejector device (apparatus for generating a vacuum) (fig. 3) which device operates with compressed air (pressurized air) to generate a vacuum (col. 4, ln 20 – 29). Klopfenstein further discloses that it would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan to modify the ejector device (venturi tube 160) and use a quick-fit type attachment (quick-disconnect) to connect the compressed air line (col. 5, ln 41 – 44) which would allow for rapid disconnection of the air line, which is to say it would have been an obvious matter of design to have modified Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack and provide the ejector device with a quick-fit type attachment as taught by Klopfenstein. Further regarding claim 20, Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Klopfenstein disclose the air line would provide a measurement of the degree of reduced pressure to the pressure gauge (1805) (col. 14, ln 58 – 64 and fig. 31).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzolin et al. US 2016/0192694 in view of Gannon GB 2 139 595 as further evidenced by Furgal US 2,831,774 in view of ErkenBrack US 5,142,970 as further evidenced by in view of Skaggs US 6,017,195 in view of Whitlock US 2,774,636 as further evidenced by Ricco US 2012/0017538.
Claim 21 differs from Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs in the ejector device being provided solenoid valve connected to a network of compressed air.
Whitlock discloses that it was quite old, well established, and conventional in the art to control an ejector device (venturi 15) which operates with compressed air by regulating, i.e., controlling the flow of compressed air supplied to an ejector by means of a solenoid valve (26) (col. 2, ln 61 – col. 3, ln 02). Whitlock is regulating the compressed air supplied to the ejector device by a control unit controlling a first solenoid valve in order to regulate the degree of vacuum that would be applied by an ejector device which is the applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs and regulate the compressed air supplied to the ejector device by a control unit controlling a solenoid valve as taught by Whitlock would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Rico provides further evidence that it was common and conventional in the art to regulate a network of compressed air by the use of valves (paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 22, as set forth in the rejections of claim 21 Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs in view of Whitlock as further evidenced by Rico disclose the use of a solenoid valve that would be connected to the ejector device.
Franzolin in view of Gannon as further evidenced by Furgal in view of ErkenBrack in view of Skaggs in view of Whitlock as further evidenced by Rico further disclose that after the concentration of oxygen has been reduced the concentration of oxygen would be monitored, that is measured and automatically restored to the initial desired concentration automatically as necessary (‘694, paragraph [0054] – [0055]). This is to say that since the air line connected to the ejector device is controlled by a solenoid valve and the concentration of oxygen is monitored after the step of reducing the concentration of oxygen the solenoid valve would necessarily need to be opened for a few second to make the compressed air flow in the air ling which connects the analog pressure gauge to the ejector device.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Franzolin applicant urges that Franzolin needs to add a non-oxidizing gas to replace the oxygen in the container which gas is introduced from outside the container. This urging is not found persuasive.
First it is noted that Franzolin discloses that the replacement of oxygen with a non-oxidizing gas is a preferred embodiment (paragraph [0039]) which is not seen to require said replacement. Further, Franzolin discloses alternatives such as that the technique of oxygen reduction may be achieved by the production of a vacuum to the container as well as by water vapor pressure (vapour pressure of the water . . . equals the partial pressure . . . in the preserving chamber) (paragraph [0051]). It is also seen that Franzolin discloses that the afore mentioned replacement is on an “if necessary in order to avoid negative effects” strongly suggesting to the ordinarily skilled artisan that such replacement is not necessarily required (paragraph [0051]).
Applicant urges that Franzolin fails to teach at least the provision of the second successive period during which the conditions are created to have a production of water vapour directly evaporated from the food product. Here it is noted that Franzolin discloses that a pressure in the container is brought to a value equal to a vapor pressure of water contained in the cooked food product as claimed, which is to say that Franzolin is disclosing the same conditions as claimed therefore it would be expected that at least some water vapour would be produced directly, that is evaporated from the food product which would be expected to cause the claimed “washing effect”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.\
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.A.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 23 January 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792