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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on December 26th , 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 04/22/2022 for what each Generic Placeholder is interpreted as:
Interpretations:
Starting Module is referred to as a base module which can be a process chamber such as the germinating/kiln-drying units (Paragraph 22, and Figure 1, Base Unit 51).
Intermediate Module can be a process chamber such as the germinating/kiln-drying units (Paragraph 22, and Figure 1, Base Unit 52).
End Module can be a process chamber such as the germinating/kiln-drying units (Paragraph 22, and Figure 1, Base Unit 53).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-19 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, The applicants claims the invention has a processing chamber made up of modules and that the processing chamber size is adjustable. The claim’s language is indefinite on how the size of the processing chamber is adjusted. The applicants claims “Capacity level of the malting plant is adjustable by changing a size of the process chamber”. However, how that change in size is happening is not recited. The applicants claims that at least one intermediate module is connected between the starting and end module, but fails to recite whether additional intermediate module would result in the increase of the chamber size and how many intermediate module in total can be added to form the processing chamber. Furthermore, the structure that allows the modules to be connected to one another is indefinite as its not recited in the claims therefore the relationship between the module and how or whether air circulates between the modules are indefinite.
Claims 2-19 are rejected as they are dependent on rejected Claim 1
.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.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques (DE Patent No. 1206835) in view of Hay (US Patent No. 5802961) and further in view of Graff (DE Patent No. 1078518).
Regarding Claim 1, Jacques teaches an expandable malting plant for germinating and kiln- drying grain (Paragraph 1 and 15, Plant for the production of malt and the number of Wagons of the apparatus can be adjusted therefore its expandable) having a heating unit in which a heating device (Figure 1 and Paragraph 38, The heating chamber 41 is provided with any desired heat source) can be installed and at least one expandable germinating/kiln-drying unit (Paragraph 1 and 15, Plant for the production of malt and the number of Wagons of the apparatus can be adjusted therefore its expandable), at least one intermediate module, and an end module, wherein the starting module is connected to the intermediate module, and wherein the intermediate module is connected to the end module (Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, Wagons 1-9 of the apparatus connect to each other, therefore reads as having an intermediate module, an end module, and a starting module) to form a process chamber for germinating and kiln-drying grain, wherein the capacity level of the malting plant can be adjusted by changing the size of the process chamber (Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, The number of Wagons of the apparatus can be adjusted therefore adjusting the capacity level of grain in the processing chamber formed by the wagons).
Jacques fails to teach a malting plant with the air and air return channels in the claimed configurations, and at least one intermediate module, and an end module, wherein the starting module is connected to the intermediate module, and wherein the intermediate module is connected to the end module to form a process chamber for germinating and kiln-drying grain, wherein the capacity level of the malting plant can be adjusted by changing the size of the process chamber.
Hay teaches an apparatus for processing food that is able increase its capacity (Abstract and Figure 2-4) with at least one intermediate module (Figure 2, Intermediate transfer apparatus 84), and an end module, wherein the starting module (Figure 2, First transfer apparatus 82) is connected to the intermediate module (Figure 2, First transfer apparatus 82 is connected to intermediate transfer apparatus 84), and wherein the intermediate module is connected to the end module (Figure 2, Intermediate transfer apparatus 84 is connected to Transfer apparatus 80), to form a process chamber for germinating and kiln-drying grain, wherein the capacity level of the malting plant can be adjusted by changing the size of the process chamber (Figure 1-2 and Col 8 Line 58, Apparatus 80, 82, and 84 form a process chamber used for processing food and increase capacity).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques to incorporate transfer and Intermediate apparatus as stated in Hay. The amount of food processed can be increased (Paragraph 1-2, Capacity).
Jacques in view of Hay fails to teach a malting plant with the air and air return channels in the claimed configurations
Graff teaches a malting plant (Figure 1 and Paragraph 1, malting Plant) with a starting module having an air channel with a germinating fan, wherein the starting module is connected to a connector channel and a return channel to the heating unit (Figure 1 and Paragraph 7, Base 17 that contains Burners 47 is connected to Chamber 19 with Drum 11 through Grate 53 that serves as a Connector Channel and has Blower 33 with outlet nozzle 37 that serves as an air channel. Chamber 19 where Drum 11 is located has Opening 43 that recirculates air back to Base 17), wherein the malting plant is configured to selectively - conduct air from outside of the starting module into the process chamber and/or circulate air from the process chamber via the air channel into the process chamber using the germinating fan during the germinating process (Figure 1 and Paragraph 8, Showcases Blower 33 drawing air from the outside through channel 40 and through Grate 53 and into Chamber 19 and Drum 11), conduct air that has been temperature-controlled by the heating device in the heating unit via the connector channel into the process chamber via the starting module during the kiln-drying process of the grain (Figure 1 and Paragraph 8, Showcases Blower 33 drawing air from channel 40 through Burners 47 to control the temperature and through Grate 53 and into Chamber 19 and Drum 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques in view of Hay to incorporate the air and air return channels in the claimed configurations as stated in Graff. The malting plant air and air return channel have a flap that is able to control whether air is recirculated back and mixed with fresh air or just utilizing fresh air (Paragraph 7, Recirculation).
Regarding Claim 2, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches that one additional intermediate module is insertable between the starting module and the end module (Jacques: Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, Wagons 1-9 of the apparatus connect to each other, therefore reads as having an intermediate module, an end module, and a starting module) so that the starting module, the intermediate module, the at least one additional intermediate module, and the end module are connected to one another and the intermediate modules form the process chamber (Jacques: Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, Wagons 1-9 of the apparatus connect to each other, therefore form a processing chamber), wherein the capacity level of the malting plant is adjusted by inserting the at least one intermediate module (Jacques: Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, The number of Wagons of the apparatus can be adjusted therefore adjusting the capacity level of grain in the processing chamber formed by the wagons).
Regarding Claim 3, Jacques in view of Hay teaches a processing chamber (Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, Wagons 1-9 of the apparatus connect to each other, therefore form a processing chamber)
Jacques in view of Holtkamp fails to teach a malting plant with the air and air return channels in the claimed configurations
Graff teaches a malting plant (Figure 1 and Paragraph 1, malting Plant) where the return air and/or fresh air is conducted into the apparatus in the air shaft by the germinating fan (Figure 1 and Paragraph 8, Showcases Blower 33 drawing air from the outside through channel 40 and through Grate 53 and into Chamber 19 and Drum 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques in view of Hay to incorporate the air and air return channels in the claimed configurations as stated in Graff. The malting plant air and air return channel have a flap that is able to control whether air is recirculated back and mixed with fresh air or just utilizing fresh air (Paragraph 7, Recirculation).
Regarding Claim 8, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches that least one germinating/kiln-drying unit is rectangular, and wherein by inserting intermediate modules a batch capacity is expandable in a stepwise manner in accordance with a number of intermediate modules inserted (Jacques: Figure 1-2, and Paragraph 15, the Wagons are rectangular and the number of wagons can be adjusted and expanded in a stepwise manner).
Regarding Claim 9, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches that the modules have a width and a length, and the length of the germinating/kiln-drying units is dependent on the number of intermediate modules (Jacques: Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, The Wagons have a width and length and the number of Wagons can be adjusted therefore adjusting the length and width).
Regarding Claim 10, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches that the at least one intermediate module on an air-permeable kiln floor which divides the process chamber into a lower section and an upper section, wherein the germinating fan in the air channel is configured to introduce the air through the lower section, to allow the air to flow through the grain, and to allow the air to return to the air channel through the upper section (Jacques: Paragraph 11, The carrier wagons 1-9 are provided with a perforated intermediate floor carrying the treated material, wherein furthermore the space enclosed by the car floors and the perforated intermediate floors makes a lower section that is connected to the through slots of the air supply duct via a side slot to supply air).
Regarding Claim 13, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches that germinating the grain in the germinating/kiln-drying unit, and kiln-drying the grain by heating the air by the at least one heating device that is arranged in the heating unit and is connected to each of the at least one germinating/kiln-drying units (Jacques: Paragraph 15-18 and Figure 1, The grains are germinated and then are than dried in Positon 9. Figure 1 and Paragraph 28-31 and 38, the Wagons are connected to Heating Chamber through air channels to receive heated air. The heating chamber 41 is provided with any desired heat source).
Regarding Claim 14, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches that involves the use of at least two germinating/kiln-drying units, wherein during the kiln-drying of grain in one of the at least two germinating/kiln-drying units, the germination of grain is carried out in the other germinating/kiln-drying unit or the others of the at least two germinating/kiln-drying units (Jacques: Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, Wagons 1-9 of the apparatus connect to each other, therefore form a processing chamber. Paragraph 15-18 and Figure 1, The grains are germinated in position 3-8 and then are than dried in Positon 9).
Regarding Claim 15, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches that through a stepwise increase in the batch size by inserting at least one additional intermediate module in the germinating/kiln-drying unit and/or by providing an additional germinating/kiln-drying unit and connecting the additional germinating/kiln-drying unit(s) to the heating unit and/or by expanding the capacity of the steeping unit (Jacques: Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, The number of Wagons of the apparatus can be adjusted therefore adjusting the capacity level of grain in the processing chamber formed by the wagons).
Claims 4-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques (DE Patent No. 1206835) in view of Hay (US Patent No. 5802961) and further in view of Graff (DE Patent No. 1078518) and Holtkamp (DE Patent No. 202008006186).
Regrading Claim 4, Jacques in view of Hay fails to teach a heating unit with a heat exchanger, the heating device, and a central kiln-drying fan.
Graff teaches a malting plant (Figure 1 and Paragraph 1, malting Plant) where the heating unit has at least the heating device, and a central kiln-drying fan for temperature-controlling the fresh air and/or recirculating air (Figure 1 and Paragraph 1, malting Plant with Base 17, which reads as a heating building, that contains Burners 47 and Blower 33).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques in view of Hay to incorporate the heating device, and a central kiln-drying fan as stated in Graff. The burners, which are supplied with gaseous or liquid fuel, along with the fan, heat the air during the drying step of the malting process (Paragraph 8, Fan and Burners).
Jacques in view of Hay and Graff fails to teach a malting plant with a heating unit that has a heat exchanger.
Holtkamp teaches a malting apparatus (Figure 1, Malting Apparatus) where the heating unit has at least one heat exchanger (Figure 1, Heat Exchanger 7, 10 and 12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques in view of Hay and Graff to incorporate a heat exchanger as stated in Holtkamp. The Cross-flow glass tube heat exchangers used help with heat recovery which helps reduce fuel consumption (Paragraph 11, Heat Recovery).
Regarding Claim 5, Jacques in view of Hay and Holtkamp teaches a process chamber for germinating and kiln-drying grain (Jacques: Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, Wagons 1-9 of the apparatus connect to each other, therefore form a processing chamber)
Jacques in view of Hay and Holtkamp fails to teach a malting plant with the air and air return channels in the claimed configurations and that the kiln-drying fan is configured to conduct air that has been temperature-controlled by the heating device.
Graff teaches a malting plant (Figure 1 and Paragraph 1, malting Plant) where the kiln-drying fan is configured to conduct air that has been temperature-controlled by the heating device through the connector channel into the apparatus via the starting module during the kiln-drying process of the grain, and to return the air to the heating unit again via the return air channel, either via the heat exchanger or directly to the heating device (Figure 1 and Paragraph 8, Showcases Blower 33 drawing air from channel 40 through Burners 47 to control the temperature and through Grate 53 and into Chamber 19 and Drum 11. Figure 1, Air is drawn back into Channel 40 through Opening 43 to the Burners 47).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques in view of Hay and Holtkamp to incorporate the air and air return channels in the claimed configurations as stated in Graff. The malting plant air and air return channel have a flap that is able to control whether air is recirculated back and mixed with fresh air or just utilizing fresh air (Paragraph 7, Recirculation).
Regrading Claim 6, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches that the capacity level of germinated and kiln-dried grain of the malting plant having a heating device is adjustable using the number of germinating/kiln-drying modules (Jacques: Figure 1 and Paragraph 15, The number of Wagons of the apparatus can be adjusted therefore adjusting the capacity level of grain in the processing chamber formed by the wagons).
Jacques in view of Graff fails to teach the capacity of the malting plant.
Holtkamp teaches a malting apparatus (Figure 1, Malting Apparatus) where the capacity level of germinated and kiln-dried grain of the malting plant having a heating device is adjustable from 16 t/batch and day to 56 t/batch and day using the number of germinating/kiln-drying modules, and/or wherein the capacity level of germinated and kiln-dried grain per germinating/kiln-drying unit spans 16 t to 56 t, and/or wherein the malting plant comprises up to 7 process modules per heating unit (Paragraph 48, Malt production is up to 100,000 t/a).
Holtkamp teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. It
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has
been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the
capacity level of grain germinated and kiln-dried would allow for needed malting
production. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve
any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would
perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design
choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality the capacity level of grain germinated and kiln-
dried is between 16 t/batch and day to 56 t/batch and day. This particular arrangement is
deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and
evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a
particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
MPEP 2144.05.
Regrading Claim 17, Jacques in view of Graff, and Holtkamp fails to teach the unloading station is arranged in the starting module.
Hay teaches an apparatus for processing food that is able increase its capacity (Abstract and Figure 2-4) where an unloading station is arranged in the starting module (Figure 2, Storage 902 is connected to Apparatus 82).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques in view of Graff, and Holtkamp to incorporate a unloading station as stated in Hay. The processed food is continuously discharged into the storage as the process is ongoing (Figure 2, Storage).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques (DE Patent No. 1206835) in view of Hay (US Patent No. 5802961) and further in view of Graff (DE Patent No. 1078518) and Feng (CN Patent No. 2316320).
Regrading Claim 7, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff fails to teach a turning device in the apparatus.
Feng teaches a malting machine (Paragraph 1, Malting Machine) where each germinating/kiln-drying unit comprises a turning device and/or comprises an unloading station, (Figure 1, Heat-Preservation Cylinder 1 contains Spiral Stirrer 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques in view of Hay and Graff to incorporate turning device as stated in Feng. The malting plant uses the stir to help evenly soak and dry the wheat during the malting process (Paragraph 16-18, Spiral Stirrer 2).
Claims 11-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques (DE Patent No. 1206835) in view of Hay (US Patent No. 5802961) and further in view of Graff (DE Patent No. 1078518) and Yue (CN Patent No. 206687099).
Regarding Claim 11, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches having a steeping unit for steeping the grain (Jacques: Paragraph 16 and Figure 1, The material to be treated is first soaked when it is in the trolley which occupies positions 1 and 2), wherein the steeping unit is connected to the at least one germinating/kiln-drying unit for transporting the steeped grain into the process chamber (Jacques: Paragraph 16 and Figure 1, The steeping section is connected to the germination section in trolley positions 3 to 8 and to a drying process in trolley position 9).
Jacques in view of Hay and Graff fails to teach that the shape of the steeping unit is cylindroconical shape.
Yue teaches a malting apparatus (Paragraph 1-5, Malting Apparatus) where the steeping unit preferably has a cylindroconical shape (Figure 1, Soaking Device 1 has a cylindroconical shape).
However, Yue does not teach that the steeping unit has in cross section an essentially circular inner wall and hexagonal outer wall. Regarding the shape of the steeping unit, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B.
Regarding Claim 12, Jacques in view of Hay and Graff teaches that the capacity of the steeping unit is increasable in a stepwise manner by inserting intermediate rings in the intermediate section (Jacques: Paragraph 15-16, Steeping unit is made up of three wagons 1-3 and the number of wagons can be adjusted, This reads as increasing capacity by adding more intermediate wagons to the apparatus).
Jacques in view of Hay and Graff fails to teach that the intermediate section is ring shaped. Regarding the shape of the intermediate sections, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B.
Jacques in view of Graff fails to teach that the steeping unit has a lid and a conical base
Yue teaches a malting apparatus (Paragraph 1-5, Malting Apparatus) where the steeping unit has a conical base section, a cylindrical lid (Figure 1, Showcases the Soaking Device as a lid and a conical base).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques in view of Graff to incorporate a lid and a conical base as stated in Yue. The steeping unit base has a weighing device that weighs the product and displays it for easy and convenient for production management (Paragraph 19 and Figure 1, Weighing Device 2).
Regrading Claim 18, Jacques in view of Hay, Graff fails to teach that the steeping unit has a cylindroconical shape.
Yue teaches a malting apparatus (Paragraph 1-5, Malting Apparatus) where the steeping unit has a cylindroconical shape (Figure 1, Soaking Device 1 has a cylindroconical shape).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacques in view of Hay, Graff to incorporate the shape of the steeping unit as stated in Yue. Regarding the shape of the steeping unit, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular shape, since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular shape. (MPEP 2144.05-IV-B)
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques (DE Patent No. 1206835) in view of Hay (US Patent No. 5802961) and further in view of Graff (DE Patent No. 1078518), Yue (CN Patent No. 206687099) and Feng (CN Patent No. 2316320).
Regrading Claim 19, Jacques in view of Hay, Graff, and Yue fails to teach that in cross-section, the steeping unit has an essentially circular inner wall and hexagonal outer wall.
Feng teaches a malting machine (Paragraph 1, Malting Machine) that in cross-section, the steeping unit has an essentially circular inner wall (Figure 1, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 has an intermediate section, between the conical shaped base and the lid, with an inner wall that is circular) and hexagonal outer wall (Figure 1, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 and the Insulating Cylinder 1 make up the inner and outer walls).
However, Feng in view of Jacques does not teach that the steeping unit has in cross section an essentially hexagonal outer wall. Regarding the shape of the steeping unit, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP § 2144.04 -IVB.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular shape, since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular shape. (MPEP 2144.05-IV-B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 26th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The structure of the processing chamber and its adjustability and the connection between the modules are indefinite. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Hay.
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 HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights