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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 12-15 and 19-23 in the reply filed on 11/05/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters
“4” has been used to designate all variants of the measured values regardless of what they are a measured value of. Each different type of measured value needs a different number.
“33” has been used to designate all variants of the measuring device regardless of what they measure. Each different type of measuring device needs a different number
“48” has been used to designate all variants of the control units regardless of what they are a control unit for. Each different type of control unit needs a different number.
“4” and “36” have both been used to designate the measured value of the aqueous medium.
“4” and “41” have both been used to designate the measured value of the preserved food.
“33” and “35” have both been used to designate the measuring device of the aqueous medium.
“33” and “40” have both been used to designate the measuring device of the preserved food.
“37” and “42” have both been used to designate the measuring line.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to Figure 2, is two paragraphs, and discusses the purported merits: “avoiding impurities…consistent product quality…”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, and 18 are objected to as claims withdrawn due to a restriction should have their claim status identified based on current status of prosecution and therefore should have the “withdrawn” status identifier.
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 limitations use 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:
A preservation device in claim 12 with the function being to preserve the food. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
An evaluation unit in claim 12 with the function being to output a control signal as a function of the determined measured value and to compare the determined measured value with a predetermined setpoint value and to output the control signal for changing a process parameter of the preservation device if the difference between the determined measured value and the predetermined setpoint exceeds a limit value. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
A control unit in claims 12, 14, and 19 with the function being to adjust a process parameter of the preservation device, the capacitor, the container and/or the comminution device. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
A pretreatment stage in claim 13 with the function being to wash the raw material. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
A peeling device in claim 13 with the function being to peel the raw material. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
A comminution device in claim 13 with the function being to cut the raw material into a desired shape. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
A dewatering device in claim 13 with the function being to remove water from the raw material. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
A transport device in claim 13 with the function being to move the raw material within and between the individual units. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
A measuring device in claim 21 with the function being for determining a measured value that characterizes either an ingredient of the aqueous medium or a product property of the preserved food item.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 12-15 and 19-23 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 claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. No specific disclosure could be found for the preservation device in claim 12, the evaluation unit in claim 12, the control unit in claim 12, the peeling device in claim 13, the comminution device in claim 13, the dewatering device in claim 13, the transportation device in claim 13, or the measuring device in claim 21, all of them had a list of exemplary examples but no definitive option. As such it is unknown which if any of the list of examples for each of the above subject matter applicant had possession of at the time of filing. Therefore, the disclosure is considered to fail the written description requirement for the subject matter of claims 12-15 and 19-23.
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 limitations “preservation device”, “evaluation unit”, “control unit”, “peeling device”, “comminution device”, “dewatering device”, “transportation device”, and “measuring device” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. None of the above were given definite structure and only open-ended lists of examples of what it could be rather than a definite answer of what they are. In the interest of applying prior art, examiner will treat each of the limitations as being any device capable of fulfilling the function recited. Therefore, claims 12-15 and 19-23 are indefinite and are 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.
Claims 15 and 20 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 claims 15 and 20, the phrase “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will treat the limitation following as part of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
Claim 23 claims “that the optical sensor comprises an infrared sensor” which depends on Claim 22 which claims “the at least one measuring device comprises an optical sensor” which is dependent on claim 12 which contains the limitation “at least one measuring device that comprises an in-line infrared sensor”. An in-line infrared sensor is an infrared sensor and is also a type of optical sensor. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12, 14 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskar et al. (US Publication 2019/0116854) hereafter referred to as Bhaskar in view of Stork Genannt Wersborg (US Publication 2015/0330640) hereafter referred to as Stork, and Discenzo (US Patent 8615374).
Regarding claims 12, 14, 22, and 23, Bhaskar teaches a device (Figure 1) for producing fried crisps from raw fruits or vegetables comprising the following units: a capacitor (20) for treating the raw material with an electric field, a container for an optional quenching and draining step (50) [(0035)] for bringing the treated raw material into contact with an aqueous medium as quenching means to cool suddenly by immersion, a frying or preservation device (29),
Bhaskar does not teach at least one measuring device that comprises an in-line infrared sensor for determining a measured value that characterizes a product property of the preserved food item, wherein the product property is the color and/or the product moisture of the preserved food item, an evaluation device for outputting a control signal as a function of the determined measured value, or a control unit configured for adjusting process parameter of the preservation device; wherein the evaluation unit is connected to the at least one measuring device in a signal-transmitting manner, and wherein the evaluation unit configured to compare the determined measured value with a predetermined setpoint value and to output the control signal for changing a process parameter of the preservation device if the difference between the determined measured value and the predetermined setpoint exceeds a limit value for claim 12 and does not teach a control unit configured for adjusting process parameter of the capacitor, at the container or the comminution device for claim 14.
Stork teaches a measuring device for measuring the color and other properties before, during, and after cooking that comprises an in-line image sensor (760) that is infrared ([0067]) along with other in-line image sensors (760) inside an oven (110) for determining information about changes in color of the preserved food items related to the food treatment ([0068]).
As Stork teaches the use of the image sensors (760) in an oven or cooking device to measure the color of the cooked foodstuffs and as Bhaskar teaches a cooking device, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Bhaskar to add the image sensors as set forth in Stork to the cooking device for the purpose of measuring the color of the cooked foodstuffs to determine information about the food treatment or cooking process.
Discenzo teaches a preservation device having an evaluation unit or sensor operation module (102) for outputting various outputs including a closed loop control signal, feedback, state assessment, and/or any other suitable data configuration (Column 7, lines 14-16) which includes the simple comparison of the difference between determined measured value with the predetermined setpoint value and outputting a control signal if that difference exceeds a limit value. As it is can send control signals it is capable of adjusting the process parameters of the device that need controls including the capacitor, the comminution device, and the preservation device.
In light of adding the sensors of Stork to the device of Bhaskar, it would have in addition be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to integrate a sensor operation module that performs adjustments of the process parameters or controls of the preservation device as set forth in Bhaskar and compares the measured value of the sensor with a predetermined setpoint value and adjusts the process parameters or controls of the preservation device if the difference between the two values or the error exceeds a limit value to improve the consistency of the chips by adjusting the cooking process based on the data gathered by the sensors of Stork.
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Bhaskar teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, and Discenzo teaches adding additional sensors for measuring different things including explicitly listing both a sugar and a salt at things to be detected, additionally, Stork teaches a measuring device that gains data about shape and size ([0101]) of the food item.
Claim 13 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Bhaskar as applied to claim 12 above in view of Benson et al. (US Patent 5802959) hereafter referred to as Benson.
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Bhaskar teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, a control unit configured for adjusting the process parameters of the capacitator and of the slicing device, and that Bhaskar additionally teaches a stage for washing the raw material (10), a slicing stage (30), and a dewatering or draining step (50) and a conveyor belt (74 & 76) to move the raw material within the units and a way to feed raw produce ([0030]) into the PEF treatment device (70) or the device with the capacitor for treating the raw material with an electric field. However, the modified device of Bhasker does not teach a peeling device.
Benson teaches the peeling (11) of the potato, the slicing (12) of the potato, the washing (13) of the potato, a transport device or conveyor belt (28) for moving the raw material within and between the individual units. Which in the case of peeling the potato is an additional step which is equivalent to starting the process with a peeled potato as discussed in Bhasker ([0025]).
As the prior art of the modified device of Bhaskar and the device of Benson include each element claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of the combination of elements in a single reference, and that the potato peeler performs the same function as it does separately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add the potato peeler of Benson to the modified device of Bhasker to have potato chips with no peel.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified device of Bhaskar of claim 12 in view of Kanaya et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0022908) hereafter referred to as Kanaya.
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Bhaskar teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, but does not teach that the container comprises a fresh water supply for introducing fresh water and a process water supply for introducing recycled process water.
Kanaya teaches a container or washing tank (1) that comprises a fresh water supply (2) for introducing fresh water and a process water supply (9) for introducing recycled process water or ozonized water as a method of washing raw material for the purpose of improved cleaning of the vegetables over the use of normal water ([0015]).
As Kanaya teaches an improved method of washing vegetables or bringing the raw material into contact with water and as Bhaskar teaches a method of washing vegetables or bring the raw material into contact with water it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace quenching and draining step of Bhaskar with the device of Kanaya for the purpose of reducing water usage ([0009]) and increasing cleanliness ([0015]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified device of Bhaskar of claim 13 in view of Kanaya et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0022908) hereafter referred to as Kanaya.
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Bhaskar teaches all of the limitations of claim 13, but does not teach that the container comprises a fresh water supply for introducing fresh water and a process water supply for introducing recycled process water.
Kanaya teaches a container or washing tank (1) that comprises a fresh water supply (2) for introducing fresh water and a process water supply (9) for introducing recycled process water or ozonized water as a method of washing raw material for the purpose of improved cleaning of the vegetables over the use of normal water ([0015]).
As Kanaya teaches an improved method of washing vegetables or bringing the raw material into contact with water and as Bhaskar teaches a method of washing vegetables or bring the raw material into contact with water it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace quenching and draining step of Bhaskar with the device of Kanaya for the purpose of reducing water usage ([0009]) and increasing cleanliness ([0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thienpont et al. (US Patent Application 2019/0086325) teaches an infrared sensor for measuring a property of the potatoes, but it is of the raw potatoes and not the cooked potatoes.
Biglione et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0035078) teaches a device for cooking potato chips, but only teaches one washing of the potatoes.
Zhang et al. (US Patent 6214297) teaches the Pulsed Electric Field (PEF) treatment of food, or the capacitor for treating the raw material with an electric field. However, it does not teach anything about cooking or preparing the food.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761