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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
The objection to the drawing has been withdrawn.
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
The U.S.C 35 112(b) rejections for the use of the phrase “optionally” in claims 15 and 20 have been withdrawn.
The U.S.C 35 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 12, 14-15, and 19-22 have been amended.
Claim 13 is as previously presented.
Claims 24-29 have been added.
Claims 12-15, 19-22, and 24-29 are still pending in this application with claims 12, 24, and 25 being independent.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/08/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The abstract and modified specification were received on 04/08/2026. They are acceptable.
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.
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:
An evaluation unit in claims 12, 24 and 25 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 set point 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, 19, 24, 25 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 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.
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 12-15, 19-22, and 24-29 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 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 evaluation unit in claims 12, 24, and 25, the control unit in claims 12, 14, 19, 24, and 25, 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 “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, 19-22, and 24-29 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, and 29 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 24, 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 preservation device that is a fryer (29), frying the food for a set duration of time at a set temperature profile ([0035]).
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 or frier of Bhaskar 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 claims 21, 22, and 25, 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 moisture, a sugar, and a salt as things to be detected (Column 4 Lines 30-40) and that the additional sensors could be an optical sensor (Column 30, Line 30).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, the modified device of Bhaskar teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, and the optical or image sensor (760) of Stork gathers data about the change in dimensions or the volume change ([0068]), Stork also teaches that it is advantageous to use several image sensors ([0068]).
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.
Claims 15 and 26 are 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 claims 15 and 26, 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]).
Claims 20 and 27 are 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 claims 20 and 27, 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the argument that the original specification clearly defines and discloses the specific elements addressed at paragraphs 11 and 13 of the Official Action in a manner which will readily be understood by persons skilled in the art without any ambiguity, due to the use of open-ended phrases like “may be”, “in one embodiment”, and “for example”, it is ambiguous as to what the subject matter actually is rather that what it could be and what applicant had possession of at the time of filing.
With regard to the argument that the peeling device would be clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the disclosure the peeling device is said to be “a peeling device, where the peel is removed” and does not specify what type of peeling device applicant had at time of filing. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a peeling device is a device for peeling, but not what that device actually is rather than what it does.
With regard to the argument that Stork does not teach an in-line sensor, it should be known that a camera that watches food cook, for example in an oven, would be an in-line sensor because it is built into the oven and would automatically measure any food being cooked in the oven and therefore in-line with the cooking process. Further, there is nothing that would prohibit the sensor of Stork from being utilized on a conveyance line during a cooking process.
With regard to the argument that there is no reason to use the oven of Stork in the process of Bhasker, the oven of Stork was not used in the combined reference as the image sensors or measuring device of Stork was used, i.e. it is known to sense a product during a cooking related process.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Bhasker or at all 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 motivation to combine is found within Stork which is to measure the color of the cooked foodstuffs to determine information about the food treatment or cooking process.
In response to applicant's arguments that Discenzo does not teach the determination of product color of product moisture of fried food using an infrared sensor, and changing the frying conditions subject to the determination and its evaluation of product color and/or product moisture, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights