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 .
The status of the 06/01/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1, 9, and 12 have been amended; Claims 16-18 have been canceled; and Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claim 9:
The limitation “a conveying device” in line 2
“device” is the generic placeholder.
“conveying” is the functional language.
In claim 10:
The limitation “a cooling device” in lines 1-2
“device” is the generic placeholder.
“cooling” is the functional language.
In claim 13:
The limitation “a cooling system” in lines 1-2
“system” is the generic placeholder.
“cooling” is the functional language.
In claim 14:
The limitation “at least one dosing device” in line 3
“device” is the generic placeholder.
“dosing” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “a conveying device" in line 2 of claim 9 has been describes in published specification para. 0036 as a circulating belt 16.
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 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 10-14 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 10:
The corresponding structure of “a cooling device” in lines 1-2 is not supported in the original disclosure as interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f). Therefore, since the Specification does not clearly identify what the corresponding structure of the “a cooling device” is, there is a presumption that the applicant didn’t possess the invention at the time of filing, i.e. lack of written description.
In claim 13:
The corresponding structure of “a cooling system” in lines 1-2 is not supported in the original disclosure as interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f). Therefore, since the Specification does not clearly identify what the corresponding structure of the “a cooling system” is, there is a presumption that the applicant didn’t possess the invention at the time of filing, i.e. lack of written description.
In claim 14:
The corresponding structure of “a dosing device” in line 3 is not supported in the original disclosure as interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f). Therefore, since the Specification does not clearly identify what the corresponding structure of the “a dosing device” is, there is a presumption that the applicant didn’t possess the invention at the time of filing, i.e. lack of written description.
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 10-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 10:
The claim limitation “a cooling device” in lines 1-2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as noted above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In the original specification, “a cooling device” is not disclosed structurally. The proper structure must be disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what the inventor has identified to perform the recited function.
In claim 13:
The claim limitation “a cooling system” in lines 1-2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as noted above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In the original specification, “a cooling system” is not disclosed structurally. The proper structure must be disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what the inventor has identified to perform the recited function.
In claim 14:
The claim limitation “at least one dosing device” in line 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as noted above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In the original specification, “at least dosing device” is not disclosed structurally. The proper structure must be disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what the inventor has identified to perform the recited function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sastry (US 20080233250) in view of MacFarlane (US 2158136)
Regarding Claim 1, Sastry discloses a device (treatment zone 1000) for continuously heating foodstuffs (para. 0095; figs. 8-9. The tub 1 comprises a treatment chamber 1000 that allows fluid to be continuously heated), comprising
a channel (tub 1) arranged to receive an electrically conductive liquid (electrically conductive fluid) (“an electrically conductive fluid in which produce is immersed”, para. 0058),
mutually opposite electrodes (electrodes 2a-n, 2b-n; fig. 10) are arranged in pairs on side walls of the channel and are connected to a current source (power source 3) (para. 0113; figs. 1, 8, and 10), wherein
a first pair of the mutually opposite electrodes (electrodes 2a-1, 2b-1; figs. 10 and 8) is arranged on the side walls at a distance along the channel (para. 0113; fig. 10),
a second pair of the mutually opposite electrodes (electrodes 2a-2, 2b-2; figs. 10 and 8) is arranged in electrical contact with an interior of the channel (para. 0113).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sastry does not disclose each of the pairs of electrodes is electrically connected to a respective one of separate secondary windings of a common transformer of the current source and the secondary windings are arranged to be excited by a common primary winding of the transformer of the current source.
However, MacFarlane discloses each of the pairs of electrodes (pairs of electrodes 11, 12, and 13) is electrically connected to a respective one of separate secondary windings of a common transformer of the current source (transformers 21, 22, and 23 of the voltage regulator 18 of alternating current source 10) (it is noted the transformers 21, 22, and 23 constitute the separate secondary windings because they are separate coils/windings that are commonly and electrically connected to the movable winding 20/secondary side of the common transformer/voltage regulator 18) and the secondary windings (transformers 21, 22, and 23) are arranged to be excited by a common primary winding of the transformer of the current source (stationary winding 19 of the voltage regulator 18 of alternating current source 10) (col. 2, lines 1-45) (it is noted MacFarlane is silent regarding the voltage regulator 18 is a transformer, however provided as evidence an attached non-patent literature to EEEGUIDE, https://www.eeeguide.com/induction-regulators/, “induction regulators” is a voltage transformer. The transformers 21, 22, and 23 are commonly and electrically connected to the movable winding/secondary winding 20 of the voltage regulator 18 and are excited by the common stationary winding 19 of the voltage regulator 18).
PNG
media_image2.png
724
837
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the pairs of electrodes of is electrically connected to a respective one of separate secondary windings of the common transformer of the current source and the secondary windings are arranged to be excited by the common primary winding of the transformer of the current source as taught by MacFarlane, in order to supply substantially uniform current through each pair of the electrodes, thereby generate uniform heat across the channel (col. 2, lines 40-44 of MacFarlane).
Regarding Claim 2, Sastry discloses the device (treatment zone 1000), wherein the side walls are arranged vertically (side walls of zone 1000; fig. 10) and the channel comprises a bottom which is flat and is arranged horizontally and connects the side walls (“the treatment zone 1000 is a hollow elongated cube or rectangular shape”, para. 0096; figs. 8 and 10).
Regarding Claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the side walls (side walls of the tub 1) are arranged at a spacing.
The modification does not disclose the spacing equal to the diameter of the foodstuff multiplied by a factor of 1.05 to 1.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the spacing between the side walls of the channel (i.e. tub 1) to be equal to the diameter of the foodstuff multiplied by a factor of 1.05 to 1.5, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to ensure the food won’t get stuck to the side walls of the tub 1 because the spacing of the side walls is larger than the food.
Regarding Claim 6, Sastry discloses the device (treatment zone 1000), wherein the current source (power source 3) is configured to apply different electrical power to each of the pairs of electrodes (electrode set 2a-n, 2b-n) (para. 0113) (it is noted the power source 3 supplies power to electrode set 2a-n, 2b-n between on and off operation).
Regarding Claim 7, Sastry discloses the device (treatment zone 1000), comprising, below the channel (tub 1), a conveying device (belt 8) comprising a belt (belt 8) driven to rotate along the channel (tub 1) (para. 0099-0100; fig. 8), the conveying device having push elements (divider 130) that extend into the channel (fig. 8) and are arranged to move along the channel from an inlet end (40) towards and outlet end (30) with rotation of the belt (fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 8, Sastry discloses the device (treatment zone 1000), comprising a conveying device (pump 180) formed by a pump (pump 180) connected to the channel (tub 1) by a bleed conduit (annotated fig. 9) connected in a region of an outlet end (40) and by an inlet conduit (annotated fig. 9) connected in the region of an inlet end (30), the pump being configured to bleed liquid from the bleed conduit and to press it into the inlet conduit (para. 0112).
PNG
media_image3.png
532
1019
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Sastry discloses the device (treatment zone 1000), comprising a pulling device (belt 8) arranged as a conveying device (belt 8) at an outlet end of the channel (outlet 40) (fig. 8), the pulling device (belt 8) comprising a rotationally driven wheel (wheel 140) (“conveyor belt 8 is driven by at least one wheel 140 or 150”, para. 0101).
Regarding Claim 10, Sastry discloses the device (treatment zone 1000), comprising a cooling device (heat exchanger 190) arranged to cool liquid (fluid) contained in the channel (tub 1) (para. 0112; fig. 9) (it is noted the heat exchanger 190 is configured to cool fluid in the tub 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Sastry discloses the device (treatment zone 1000), wherein the cooling device (heat exchanger 190) is arranged to cool liquid (fluid) bled from a bleed conduit (annotated fig. 9) connected in the region of an outlet end (outlet 40) to outside the channel (tub 1) and to convey it into the channel (tub 1) through an inlet conduit (annotated fig. 9) connected in the region of an inlet end (inlet 30) (para. 0112).
PNG
media_image3.png
532
1019
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Sastry discloses the device (treatment zone 1000), wherein the cooling device (heat exchanger 190) is arranged to introduce cooling liquid (fluid) at an outlet end (annotated fig. 9), and to bleed the liquid to be cooled at a channel inlet (inlet 30) (para. 0112).
PNG
media_image4.png
545
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Sastry (US 20080233250) and MacFarlane (US 2158136) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Maroofian (US 20190106243)
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the spacing of the side walls varies along the channel.
However, Maroofian discloses a container 100, wherein the spacing of the side walls varies along the channel (annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
520
734
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the tub 1 of Sastry with the container of Maroofian that has the spacing of the side walls varies along the channel as taught by Marrofian, because it involves a simple substitution of one known device for another to obtain a predictable result, which is to contain heated fluid.
Regarding Claim 5, Maroofian discloses the spacing of the side walls widens conically from an inlet end to an outlet end (figs. 1 and 4) (it is noted the spacing of the side walls widens conically in the vertical direction from the inlet end of the container to the outlet end of the container).
PNG
media_image6.png
578
781
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
361
857
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Sastry (US 20080233250) and MacFarlane (US 2158136) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Fooks (US 1575198)
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except comprising a cooling system arranged to cool heated foodstuffs by sprinkling with water, wherein the device has a conduit which is arranged to conduct water emerging from the cooling system, with which the foodstuffs have been sprinkled, into the channel by an inlet conduit connected in the region of an inlet end.
However, Fooks discloses a cooling system (supply pipes 7 and nozzles 8) arranged to cool heated foodstuffs by sprinkling with water (“apparatus for cooking and cooling substances in sealed receptacles,”, p. 01, lines 12-18), wherein the device has a conduit (supply pipes 7) which is arranged to conduct water (water) emerging from the cooling system, with which the foodstuffs (receptacles) have been sprinkled, into the channel (container 1) by an inlet conduit (supply pipes 7) connected in the region of an inlet end (annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
463
702
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 cooling system arranged to cool heated foodstuff by sprinkling with water, as taught by Fooks recited above, in order to cool the heated foodstuff by sprinkling with water to achieve desired heating temperature of the heated foodstuff.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Sastry (US 20080233250) and MacFarlane (US 2158136) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Funk (US 20010048958)
Regarding Claim 14, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except comprising a conductivity sensor arranged to measure electrical conductivity of the liquid in the channel or in one of the conduits connected thereto, and at least one dosing device for salt, salt solution or water, which is controlled as a function of the conductivity sensor and is connected to the channel.
However, Funk discloses a conductivity sensor (conductance sensor 30) arranged to measure electrical conductivity of the liquid in the channel (chamber 46), and at least one dosing device (concentrate dispenser 32) for water (para. 0003), which is controlled as a function of the conductivity sensor (conductance sensor 30) and is connected to the channel (para. 0022).
PNG
media_image9.png
752
534
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 device to include the conductivity sensor arranged to measure the electrical conductivity of the liquid in the channel and to include the dosing device for water, which is controlled as the function of the conductivity sensor and is connected to the channel as taught by Funk, in order to achieve desired concentration of the fluid having the desired electrical conductivity to increase the consistency, repeatability, uniformity and accuracy of the concentration of the fluid in the channel (para. 0023 of Funk).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Sastry (US 20080233250) and MacFarlane (US 2158136) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Muehlhoefer (US 20120092895) and Nagano (US 4222098)
Regarding Claim 15, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the transformer has two or more primary windings driven in phase by separate clock generators.
However, Muehlhoefer discloses the transformer (transformer 70; fig. 3) has two or more primary windings (first and second windings 72, 74) driven by clock generators (transistors 80, 90) (para. 0025-0026 and 0029).
PNG
media_image10.png
360
452
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 transformer of Sastry in view of MacFarlane to have two or more primary windings driven by separate clock generators as taught by Muehlhoefer, in order to yield different absolute values at the output of the transformer by driving the one or more primary windings by the clock generators (para. 0025 of Muehlhoefer) such that the desired heating power is applied to the electrodes.
The modification does not disclose the one or more primary windings are driven in phase by separate clock generators.
However, Nagano discloses the one or more primary windings (two primary windings of transformer T1) are driven in phase by separate clock generators (col. 4, lines 5-25; fig. 2).
PNG
media_image11.png
395
869
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 one or more primary windings of Sastry in view of MacFarlane and Muehlhoefer to be driven in phase by separate clock generators as taught by Nagano, to ensure equal amount of current going through the transistors which prolongs the longevity of the transistors (col. 3, 4 lines 40-54, 27-40 respectively of Nagano).
Response to Amendment
With respect to claim objection: since amendment made to claim 9, therefore the claim objection is withdrawn.
With respect to 112 a and associated 112b rejections: since amendment made to claim 12, therefore the 112a and 112b rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to 112f notification for “conveying device” in line 2 of claim 9:
Applicant’s Arguments: Applicant argues that the 112f notification for a pulling/conveying device is inappropriate because the claim recites the pulling/conveying device comprises "rotationally driven wheel or two conveyor belts or wheels driven in opposite directions,"
Examiner’s Responses: Applicant is respectfully not persuasive because the 112f notification is made to the phrase “conveying device”, not “pulling device”. Examiner agrees that the pulling device comprises "rotationally driven wheel or two conveyor belts or wheels driven in opposite directions,", therefore it would not invoke 112f. However, the phrase “conveying device” meets the three-prong test, therefore it is appropriate that 112f notification is invoked. There is no where in the claim that states that the puling device is equivalent to the conveying device, as implied by the Applicant. It is examiner’s position that they are two separate devices that are arranged in like-manner.
With respect to 112f notifications and their corresponding 112a and 112b rejections for “cooling device” of claim 10, “cooling system of claim 13, and “at least one dosing device” in line 3 of claim 14:
Applicant’s Arguments: “cooling device” of claim 10: An artisan does not need more description than "a cooling device which is set up to cool the liquid contained in the channel." Cooling of liquid in a channel can be accomplished by any number of conventional devices, as would be understood by any artisan. A patent search for "channel cooling device" returns thousands of results. Conventional items need not be described in detail to provide written description support.
"cooling system." Of claim 13: The claim alone has enough detail for an artisan. A cooling system that outputs cooled water is conventional, and any system that outputs cooled water can be used to practice the invention of claim 13. A patent search for "water cooling system" returns hundreds of thousands of results. A large number of these hundreds of thousands of options could be used. There are also a large number of commercially available devices, as demonstrated by a google search for "water cooling system." See, e.g., the website for Filtrine™ water cooled chillers. Refrigeration cycles for water chillers are well-known and provide a water cooling system.
"dosing device." Of claim 14: The description includes the following: "Each
of the dosing devices is, for example, controlled depending on the conductivity sensor to
dose salt or a salt solution or water into the channel or into a conduit connected thereto, in
order to set a predetermined conductivity of the liquid contained in the channel." This is
sufficient description, and a quick search reveals many salt and conductivity systems, such
as conductivity controllers available from McMaster-Carr® and GEA products provides
many liquid salt dosing systems. Any conventional conductivity sensor and salt dosing device/system can be used.
Examiner’s Responses: Applicant is respectfully not persuasive because the phrases “cooling device” of claim 10, "cooling system." of claim 13, and "dosing device." of claim 14 meets the 3-prong test that invoke 112f notification. Because the phrases invoke 112f, they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function. However, the structures of these phrases are not found in the specification to perform the claimed function, therefore 112a and 112b rejections are also made. Applicant argues that they cover conventional devices as known in the art, however it is unclear to the examiner what the corresponding structures are. Applicant may amend the claim to avoid 112f notification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully considered moot in view of new ground of rejection.
For complete response, the following argument is addressed:
Applicant’s Arguments: on p. 9 of the Remarks, “no artisan would modify Sastry with Macfarlane. Macfarlane concerns the heating of ash from coal combustion in a hot
condition in order to produce mineral wool (p. 1, left column, lines 19 - 27). Heating
mineral ash in molten state is a much different task than the heating of foodstuffs in Sastry,
and no artisan would look to Macfarlane to modify Sastry given the different goals, power
requirements and requirements for precision control that are present in Sastry but not
Macfarlane. The steam peeling of tomatoes according to Sastry must avoid removing part
of the flesh of the tomatoes and merely provides current that is sufficient "after a sufficient
time, ruptures the peel from an outer layer of flesh of the produce." [0009]. Melting mineral ash is radically different from rupturing a peel of a tomato as in Sastry.”
Examiner’s Responses: Applicant’s argument is respectfully not persuasive because the arguments are directed to the manner in which the heating electrodes are to be employed. The heating electrodes can be used to heat various elements i.e. food items or material for industrial use. Macfarlane discloses uniform current is supplied to each pair of the electrodes, thereby generate uniform heating of the material (col. 2, lines 40-44). Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sastry and MacFarlane such that the uniform heating of the food stuff is achieved because each pair of the electrodes is supplied with the uniform current.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights