DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the 112b rejections have been accepted and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the cited references fail to describe the controller of claim 1” (Page 9 of applicant’s remarks filed 12/10/2025). However, the Office notes that Wakasa teaches that using a controller to automate an injection process is well known in the art. The Office further notes that it is well known in the art that performing manual monitoring and control of food processing related tasks is more expensive and less reliable than automatic control performed by automatic controllers as evidenced by Page 70 of Fellows (FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY Principles and Practice, 2000, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Second Edition). Since Wang (US 20190246674 A1) teaches that of performing feedback on pumps and valves from level sensors placed in a storage and mixing tank and that use of said level sensors to control the level of additive within containers is known in the art of injection processes as evidenced by Kuwa (JP 2003339328 A), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Park by using a controller to automate the control of pumps and valves from level sensors placed in storage and mixing tanks for the benefit of providing a cheaper and more reliable control method.
Applicant further argues that “the cited references fail to disclose the return unit of claim 1” (Page 10 of applicant’s remarks filed 12/10/2025). Park teaches the use of a solenoid valve to facilitate the return of extract back into the storage tank. Page 22 of Fellows (FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY Principles and Practice, 2000, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Second Edition) teaches that it is well known in the art of food processing that using pumps is known in the art to be beneficial in overcoming the frictional resistance in flow of the extracts through the pipes. Jiang also further teaches that the use of a pump to extract additives from a mixing chamber is known in the art of injection additives into food. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Park with a pump such as to facilitate the flow of extract from the pressure chamber back into the storage chamber.
Applicant further argues that there “is no motivation to combine the cited references” regarding Park and Jiang (Page 11 of applicant’s remarks filed 12/10/2025). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the use of a pump known to be advantageous in the art of food processing as evidenced by Page 22 of Fellows. Jiang provides additional support that the use of a pump to extract additives is well known in the art of injecting additives into food. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Park with a pump such as to facilitate the flow of extract from the pressure chamber back into the storage chamber.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new rejection has been made over PARK (KR 20170118379 A) in view of JIANG (CN 108112876 A), Fellows (FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY Principles and Practice, 2000, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Second Edition), Wang (US 20190246674 A1), and WAKASA (JP 2007282520 A).
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 limitation(s) is/are: “injection unit”, “supply unit”, “return unit”, and “recovery unit” in independent claim 1.
The first claim limitation is “injection unit”. 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 and drawing found the corresponding structure of a storage container (per paragraph 10).
The next claim limitation is “supply unit”. 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 and drawing found the corresponding structure of a supply flow path (per figure 5 and paragraph 72).
The next claim limitation is “return unit”. 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 and drawing found the corresponding structure of a return flow path (per figure 5 and paragraph 79).
The next claim limitation is “recovery unit”. 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 and drawing found the corresponding structure of a first recovery flow path (per figure 5 and paragraphs 83-84).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK (KR 20170118379 A) in view of JIANG (CN 108112876 A), Fellows (FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY Principles and Practice, 2000, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Second Edition), Wang (US 20190246674 A1), and WAKASA (JP 2007282520 A).
Regarding claim 1, PARK (KR 20170118379 A) teaches an apparatus for injecting an additive into a food (Figure 1), comprising:
a storage unit for storing an additive to be injected into a food (Paragraphs 49-50, extract tank 400 contains functional extracts used to spray the extract onto the grain shelf 105);
an injection unit mounted with a storage container containing the food and injecting the additive into the food (Paragraph 50, nozzle 103 is installed on an upper portion of the grain shelf 105 within pressure chamber 100a such as to spray the extract onto the grain shelf 105);
a vacuum suction unit for sucking air in an injection tank to make a vacuum pressure (Paragraph 24, vacuum tank 300 is connected to the pressure chamber and maintains the interior of the chamber within a vacuum state);
a compression unit for increasing the pressure by supplying air into the injection tank (Paragraph 25, air tank is connected to the above pressure chamber and maintains the pressure inside the pressure chamber);
a supply unit for supplying the additive in a storage tank to the injection tank (Paragraphs 49-50, pump 401 and 402 are used to supply the extracts to the nozzle 103 of the pressure chamber 100a);
a return unit for returning the additive in the injection tank to the storage tank (Paragraph 50, extract sprayed through nozzle 103 is fed back into the extract tank 400 through a pipe provided at the bottom of the pressure chamber);
a recovery unit for recovering the additive in the storage tank and the injection tank (Paragraph 53, 403 is a solenoid valve for opening and closing the pipe for the extract that has flowed into the extract tank); and
wherein the return unit includes:
a return flow path which is connected to a lower portion of the injection tank and an upper portion of the storage tank to guide the additive in the injection tank to be returned to the storage tank (Figure 1 Paragraph 50, pipe provided at the bottom of the pressure chamber and sprayed or injects through nozzle 103 installed on an upper portion of the grain shelf 105 within pressure chamber 100a such as to spray the extract onto the grain shelf 105); and
an opening/closing valve for selectively opening or closing the return flow path (Paragraph 53, 403 is a solenoid valve for opening and closing the pipe for the extract that has flowed into the extract tank).
PARK fails to teach:
a controller
wherein the controller is configured to receive signals from a first level sensor and a second level sensor installed in the storage unit, and a third level sensor, a fourth level sensor and a fifth level sensor installed in the injection unit
and to automatically perform the additive injection operation according to a preset program by controlling a plurality of opening/closing valves and a plurality of circulation pumps installed in the apparatus
wherein the return unit includes:
a circulation pump for providing power so that the additive in the injection tank may be returned to the storage tank;
JIANG (CN 108112876 A) teaches a method for injecting additives into grain, comprising:
a circulation pump for providing power so that the additive in the injection tank may be returned to the storage tank (Paragraph 13, the recovery process includes pumping the additive out of the autoclave; Paragraph 51, fat-soluble nutrients are discharged from the lower discharge valve of the vaporization chamber and enters the additive storage tank for reuse);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK with JIANG and have additive in the injection tank be pumped and returned to the storage tank. This would have been done as pumps are known in the art to be used to overcome the frictional resistance in flow of the extracts through the pipes as evidenced by Page 22 of Fellows (FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY Principles and Practice, 2000, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Second Edition).
Park as modified fails to explicitly teach “a controller … wherein the controller is configured to receive signals from a first level sensor and a second level sensor installed in the storage unit, and a third level sensor, a fourth level sensor and a fifth level sensor installed in the injection unit and to automatically perform the additive injection operation according to a preset program by controlling a plurality of opening/closing valves and a plurality of circulation pumps installed in the apparatus”.
However, Wang (US 20190246674 A1) teaches a blending system wherein three level detectors installed in each of two storage tanks and in each of two mixing tanks wherein signals from each of said detectors are used to detect the liquid level within said tanks and used to control the various pumps and valves of the apparatus (Wang Figure 1 Paragraphs 10 and 38). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park with Wang and added multiple level sensors within both the storage unit and injection unit. This would have been done to detect the liquid levels inside the pressure chamber in real time and prevent it from being overfilled or from damaging the pump through dry pumping (Wang Paragraph 38). The Office further notes that the placement of level sensors within the tanks of a food impregnation treatment apparatus and using said level sensors to control the amount of impregnation agent in the impregnation tank is known in the art as evidenced by Kuwa (JP 2003339328 A).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having three immersion sensors for detecting specific levels within the injection tank would not be patentable unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
While Park modified with Wang fails to explicitly teach of a controller used “a controller to automatically perform the additive injection operation according to a preset program by controlling a plurality of opening/closing valves and a plurality of circulation pumps installed in the apparatus”, WAKASA (JP 2007282520 A) teaches a flavoring apparatus for impregnating foodstuffs comprising a controller which is connected to sensors within the treatment chamber and controls various parameters based on readings from said sensors (WAKASA Paragraphs 25 and 30). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK with WAKASA and have the process be automatically controlled by a control unit. This would have been done as it is well known in the art that performing manual monitoring and control of food processing related tasks is more expensive and less reliable than automatic control performed by automatic controllers as evidenced by Page 70 of Fellows (FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY Principles and Practice, 2000, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Second Edition).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having a control unit control the process of the apparatus instead of having the apparatus be performed manually is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Since Wang (US 20190246674 A1), Kuwa (JP 2003339328 A), and Page 70 of Fellows (FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY Principles and Practice, 2000, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Second Edition) each individually teach that using the results of level sensors to perform feedback function on adjusting pumps and/or valves is well known in the art, using a control unit is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, PARK as modified teaches the apparatus for injecting the additive into the food of claim 1, wherein the storage unit includes:
the storage tank which stores the additive and assists to inject the additive (Paragraphs 49-50, extract tank 400 can pump the liquid extract through the nozzle); a first shut-off valve provided to open or close the storage tank (Paragraph 53, 402 is a solenoid valve for opening and closing the pipe that transports the extract);
Wang (US 20190246674 A1) further teaches:
a first level sensor for sensing a maximum storage position when the additive is filled in the storage tank (Paragraph 10, upper-limit liquid-level gauge for detecting the limit liquid levels in real time); and
a second level sensor for sensing a minimum storage position of the additive required for the additive injection operation (Paragraph 38, the discharge pump is shut off for protection when the level of the soy sauce is lower than a lower-limit value).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK with Wang and have the two sensors for sensing the storage of the additive. This would have been done to detect the liquid levels inside the pressure chamber in real time and prevent it from being overfilled or from damaging the pump through dry pumping (Wang Paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 3, PARK as modified teaches the apparatus for injecting the additive into the food of claim 1, wherein the injection unit includes:
the injection tank (pressure chamber 100a) for providing a space so that the additive injection operation may be performed (Paragraph 22, pressure chamber 100a contains a shelf to contain the settling grains on which the injection operation is to be performed upon);
a cover provided to open or close the injection tank (Paragraph 22, pressure chamber having an openable lid);
the storage container provided to contain the food to be injected with the additive (Paragraph 22, pressure chamber 100a contains a shelf to contain the settling grains on which the injection operation is to be performed upon);
a support provided to mount the storage container containing the food (Paragraph 22, shelf is installed inside and supported by the pressure chamber for settling grains);
a shut-off valve that is selectively opened when the pressure inside the injection tank is made into atmospheric pressure (Paragraph 22, pressure chamber contains a solenoid valve which opens in response to overpressure to control the internal pressure).
Wang (US 20190246674 A1) further teaches:
a first immersion level sensor for sensing a minimum level when the food is not immersed in the additive (Paragraph 27, tanks contain blending liquid-level detector 9 for detecting limiting liquid levels);
a second immersion level sensor for sensing a maximum level when the food is not immersed in the additive (Paragraph 38, the discharge pump is shut off for protection when the level of the soy sauce is lower than a lower-limit value);
a third immersion level sensor for sensing a level when the food is completely immersed in the additive (Paragraph 10, upper-limit liquid-level gauge for detecting the limit liquid levels in real time);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK with Wang and have the two sensors for sensing liquid level within the pressure chamber. This would have been done to detect the liquid levels inside the pressure chamber in real time and prevent it from being overfilled or from damaging the pump through dry pumping (Wang Paragraph 38). The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having three immersion sensors for detecting specific levels within the injection tank would not be patentable unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
The Office further notes that the placement of level sensors within the tanks of a food impregnation treatment apparatus and using said level sensors to control the amount of impregnation agent in the impregnation tank wherein multiple level sensors are placed such as to facilitate processing different amounts of food and using different amounts of additive is known in the art as evidenced by Kuwa (JP 2003339328 A).
Regarding claim 6, PARK as modified teaches the apparatus for injecting the additive into the food of claim 1, wherein the supply unit includes:
a circulation pump for providing power so that the additive in the storage tank may be supplied to the injection tank (Paragraph 34, pump of the extract tank is operated to spray the functional extract through the nozzle);
a supply flow path which is connected to a lower portion of the storage tank and an upper portion of the injection tank to guide the additive in the storage tank to be supplied to the injection tank (Figure 1, pump 401 of extract tank 400 contains a supply flow path connected to a lower portion of the extract tank and an upper portion of pressure chamber 100a);
an opening/closing valve for selectively opening or closing the supply flow path (Paragraph 53 solenoid valve 402 for opening and closing the pipe that transports the extract); and
a spray nozzle connected to one end of the supply flow path and positioned at an upper portion in the injection tank to supply the additive to the food (Paragraph 50, pump 401 spray the extract through nozzle 103 installed on the upper part of the grain shelf 105 of the pressure chamber 100a).
Regarding claim 7, PARK as modified teaches the apparatus for injecting the additive into the food of claim 1, wherein the recovery unit includes:
a recovery tank for storing the recovered additive (Paragraph 52, extract flows back into extract tank);
a second recovery flow path connected to a lower portion of the injection tank to guide the additive up to a junction of the first recovery flow path so as to be recovered to the recovery tank (Figure 1 Paragraph 50, pipe provided at the bottom of the pressure chamber and sprayed or injects through the pump);
a second opening/closing valve for selectively opening or closing the second recovery flow path (Paragraph 53, 403 is a solenoid valve for opening and closing the pipe for the extract that has flowed into the extract tank); and
JIANG further teaches:
a recovery tank for storing the recovered additive (Paragraph 35, mixer mixes fat-soluble nutrients together with CO2 fluid);
a circulation pump for providing power to recover the additive in the storage tank (Paragraph 48, high-pressure delivery pump 83 delivers fat-soluble nutrients from vaporization chamber 5 and autoclave 3 to the recovery tank) and the injection tank to the recovery tank (Paragraph 35, high-pressure delivery pump 81 delivers liquid CO2 to the mixer 4; Paragraph 38, the liquid CO2 being delivered was recovered from the autoclave 1);
a first recovery flow path connected to a lower portion of the storage tank to guide the additive to be recovered to the recovery tank (Figure 2, flow path including inlet valve 18 and outlet valve 17 as well as additive high-pressure delivery pump 83 connect the lower potion of vaporization chamber 5 with the mixer 4);
a second recovery flow path connected to the injection tank to guide the additive up to a junction of the first recovery flow path so as to be recovered to the recovery tank (Figure 2, flow path including recovery valve 14, recovery pump 84, and high-pressure delivery pump 81 delivers CO2 up to a junction of the first flow path right under mixer 4);
an opening/closing valve for selectively opening or closing the first recovery flow path (Paragraph 37, lower discharge valve 17 and inlet valve 18 open and close the first recovery flow path);
a second opening/closing valve for selectively opening or closing the second recovery flow path (Paragraph 38, recovery valve 14 selectively opens and closes the second recovery flow path); and
a shut-off valve for opening or closing the recovery tank (Figure 2 Paragraph 35, inlet valve 10 closes off the mixer 4 to the autoclave 1).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK with JIANG and included a recovery system, which recovers additives from the chamber, and a mixer which combines them to deliver them into the chamber. This would have been done to facilitate a method of uniformly adding the additive to the entire tissue of rice (JIANG Paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK (KR 20170118379 A) in view of JIANG (CN 108112876 A), Fellows (FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY Principles and Practice, 2000, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Second Edition), Wang (US 20190246674 A1), and WAKASA (JP 2007282520 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KUWA (JP 2003339328 A) and OSHA (Drains on Air Receivers; 29 CFR 1910.169(a)(2)(i) and (6)(2), Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1978).
Regarding claim 4, PARK as modified teaches the apparatus for injecting the additive into the food of claim 1, wherein
the vacuum suction unit includes:
a vacuum pump for providing power to suck the air inside the injection tank (Paragraph 51, vacuum tank 300 is equipped with a vacuum pump to create a vacuum state within the pressure chamber);
a suction flow path connected between the injection tank and the vacuum pump to guide the air inside the injection tank to be sucked (Figure 1 Paragraph 51, vacuum tank 300 is equipped with a vacuum pump connects the pressure chamber 100a with the vacuum tank 300 through solenoid valve 301 on a pipe);
an air storage tank for storing the air and reducing an impact generated at a moment when the air suction is started (Paragraph 32, vacuum tank is operated to create a vacuum inside the pressure chamber; Paragraph 51, solenoid valve is closed after a vacuum is formed within the pressure chamber 100a to maintain vacuum within pressure chamber 100a);
an opening/closing valve for selectively opening or closing the suction flow path (Paragraph 51, solenoid valve is closed after a vacuum is formed within the pressure chamber 100a to maintain vacuum within pressure chamber 100a);
a vacuum regulator for maintaining the pressure in the injection tank at a set vacuum pressure (Paragraph 51, solenoid valve is closed after a vacuum is formed within the pressure chamber 100a to maintain vacuum within pressure chamber 100a);
a vacuum gauge (Figure 1, a pressure gauge is shown connecting vacuum tank 300 with pressure chamber 100a)
PARK as modified fails to teach:
a vacuum gauge indicating a pressure state in the injection tank
a drain valve for discharging water filled in the first air storage tank.
KUWA (JP 2003339328 A) teaches a food impregnation treatment apparatus, comprising:
a vacuum gauge indicating a pressure state in the injection tank (Paragraph 25, 36 denotes a vacuum gauge and a pressure gauge for measuring the pressure inside impregnation tank 4)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK with KUWA and monitor the degree of vacuum within the injection tank. This would have been done to ensure that the interior of the injection tank is sufficient for the processing and to control the injection process (KUWA Paragraph 56).
PARK as modified fails to teach:
a drain valve for discharging water filled in the first air storage tank.
OSHA (Drains on Air Receivers; 29 CFR 1910.169(a)(2)(i) and (6)(2), Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1978) teaches a directive for the proper structure of air receivers, wherein:
a drain valve for discharging water filled in the first air storage tank (Pages 1-2, drain pipe and valve shall be installed at the lowest point of every air receiver to provide for the removal of water).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK with OSHA and have a drain valve for discharging water positioned at the lowest point of the air storage tank. This would have been done to facilitate the removal of accumulated water (OSHA Page 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK (KR 20170118379 A) in view of JIANG (CN 108112876 A), Fellows (FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY Principles and Practice, 2000, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Second Edition), Wang (US 20190246674 A1), and WAKASA (JP 2007282520 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of OSHA (Drains on Air Receivers; 29 CFR 1910.169(a)(2)(i) and (6)(2), Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1978).
Regarding claim 5, PARK as modified teaches the apparatus for injecting the additive into the food of claim 1, wherein the compression unit includes:
an air compressor for providing power to supply the air into the injection tank (Paragraph 52, air tank 200 is equipped with an air pump such as to maintain the pressure inside the pressure chamber);
a compression flow path connected between the injection tank and the air compressor to guide the air to be supplied into the injection tank (Figure 1 Paragraph 52, solenoid valve 202 and a pressure gauge are attached to a pipe connecting the pressure chamber 100a and the air tank 200);
an air storage tank for storing the air and reducing an impact generated at a moment when the air supply is started (Figure 1, air tank 200 is used to store air for supplying to the pressure chamber 100a);
an opening/closing valve for selectively opening or closing the compression flow path (Paragraph 52, air tank is equipped with a solenoid valve 202);
a pressure regulator for maintaining the pressure in the injection tank at a set pressure (Figure 1 Paragraphs 22 and 26, discharge pipe having a solenoid valve attached so that the pressure inside the pressure chamber can be controlled at once through the solenoid valve and which opens in response to overpressure);
a pressure gauge indicating a pressure state in the injection tank (Paragraph 52, pressure gauge 201 is attached to a pipe connecting the pressure chamber 100a and the air tank; Paragraph 25, air tank is used to maintain the pressure within the pressure chamber at atmospheric pressure);
PARK as modified fails to teach:
a drain valve for discharging water filled in the second air storage tank
OSHA (Drains on Air Receivers; 29 CFR 1910.169(a)(2)(i) and (6)(2), Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1978) teaches a directive for the proper structure of air receivers, wherein:
a drain valve for discharging water filled in the second air storage tank (Pages 1-2, drain pipe and valve shall be installed at the lowest point of every air receiver to provide for the removal of water).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK with OSHA and have a drain valve for discharging water positioned at the lowest point of the air storage tank. This would have been done to facilitate the removal of accumulated water (OSHA Page 2).
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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761