DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on December 4th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.”. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Paragraph 50-51 states that the heating building 1 is comprised of a heating device 11, as well as a process module 5 which comprises of an air building 2 with a fan 21. However, paragraph 84 reads as the air building and the heating building being separate. This contradiction in the specification also contradicts with what is being claimed in Claim 1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the relationship between the heating building and the air building, which houses the fan, must be shown clearly in the drawings. Claim 1 states that the heating building houses the fan but the Figure 1-5 and 9 in the drawing shows them as separate and different components. This contradiction in the drawing contradicts with what is being claimed in Claim 1.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
In Claim 1: Starting Module
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.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 04/22/2022 for what each Generic Placeholder is interpreted as:
Interpretations:
Starting Module is referred to as a base module which can be a process chamber such as the germinating/kiln-drying units (Paragraph 21, 33, and Figure 1, Base Unit 51).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, In the present instance, claim 10 recites that one or more process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units is comprised of a plurality of process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the invention has one or more process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units, since the number of process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units is unclear.
Regarding Claim 11, In the present instance, claim 11 recites that one or more fresh air channels and one or more return air channels is comprised of a plurality of fresh air channels and a plurality of return air channels. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the invention has one or more fresh air channels and a plurality of return air channels, since the number of fresh air channels and a plurality of return air channels is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles (US Patent No. 2500775) in view of Ravoet (FR Patent No. 590456).
Regarding Claim 1, Charles teaches a heating building for a malting plant, comprising a heating device (Figure 1 and Col 1 Line 4-7, Malting Plant with Heat source 3), at least one heat exchanger (Col 2 Line 22-27, Heat Exchanger), a central kiln-drying fan (Figure 1, Fan 1), the heating building being configured to be connectable to one or more process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units via one or more fresh air channels and one or more return air channels (Figure 1, Germinating drum or chamber 8 is connected to the Heat Source 3 and Fan 1 through Air Ducts with a fresh air Duct 9 and a recirculating duct 6).
Charles fails to teach that the heating building is disconnect able from the drying unit.
Ravoet teaches a malting apparatus (Paragraph and Figure 1, Malting Apparatus) where the heating building is detachably connected to a start module of a process chamber or germinating/kiln drying unit (Paragraph 5 and Figure 5, Drying boxes are independent and can be removed from the apparatus which includes furnace 5. This reads as the Drying unit is detachable from the heating source).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles to incorporate a heating building that can be disconnected from the drying unit as stated in Ravoet. This installation methods allows for complete replacement of old kilning equipment (Paragraph 5, Drying Boxes).
Regarding Claim 2, Charles in view of Ravoet teaches that at least one heat exchanger (Charles: Col 2 Line 22-27, Heat Exchanger), the heating device (Charles: Figure 1 and Col 1 Line 4-7, Heat source 3) and the central kiln-drying fan (Charles: Figure 1, Fan 1) are configured to temperature-control fresh air and/or circulation air (Charles: Col 3 Line 20-41, the conditions in the malting process is temperature controlled using the Fan, the Heat Exchanger, and the Heat Source).
Regarding Claim 3, Charles in view of Ravoet teaches that the kiln-drying fan is configured to selectively conduct temperature-controlled air via the one or more fresh air channels to the at least one germinating/kiln-drying unit (Charles: Figure 1, Showcases Fan 1 drawing air from fresh air Duct 9 and into Chamber 8) and to selectively conduct the air back into the heating building via the one or more return air channels via the at least one heat exchanger or directly to the heating device (Charles: Figure 1, Air is drawn back into Fan 1 and heat source through recirculating duct 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Charles fails to teach that one or more process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units comprise a plurality of process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units, and the heating building is configured to be connectable to the plurality of process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units.
Ravoet teaches a malting apparatus (Paragraph and Figure 1, Malting Apparatus) where one or more process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units comprise a plurality of process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units, and the heating building is configured to be connectable to the plurality of process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units. (Paragraph 5 and Figure 5, Multiple Drying boxes are independent and can be removed from the apparatus which includes furnace 5. This reads as the Drying units are detachable from the heating source).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles in view of Holtkamp to incorporate a heating building that can be disconnected from the drying unit as stated in Ravoet. This installation methods allows for complete replacement of old kilning equipment (Paragraph 5, Drying Boxes).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles (US Patent No. 2500775) in view of Ravoet (FR Patent No. 590456) and further in view of Holtkamp (DE Patent No. 202008006186).
Regarding Claim 4, Charles fails to teach that at least one of up to seven process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units are connectable to the heating building, or a capacity level of grain germinated and kiln-dried in the malting plant with the heating device is adjustable from 16 t/batch and day to 56 t/batch and day by a number of process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units connected to the heating building.
Ravoet teaches a malting apparatus (Paragraph and Figure 1, Malting Apparatus) where at least one of up to seven process chambers or germinating/kiln- drying units are connectable to the heating building (Paragraph 5, Multiple Drying boxes as needed can be used in the apparatus),
Ravoet teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the number of drying units connected would allow for the needed malting production. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of germinating/kiln- drying units connected to the heating building is up to seven. This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Charles in view of Ravoet fails to teach the capacity level of grain germinated and kiln-dried.
Holtkamp teaches a malting apparatus (Figure 1, Malting Apparatus) where a capacity level of grain germinated and kiln-dried in the malting plant with a heating device is adjustable from 16 t/batch and day to 56 t/batch and day by a number of process chambers or germinating/kiln-drying units connected to the heating building (Paragraph 48, Malt production is up to 100,000 t/a).
Holtkamp teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the capacity level of grain germinated and kiln-dried would allow for needed malting production. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality the capacity level of grain germinated and kiln-dried is between 16 t/batch and day to 56 t/batch and day. This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5, Charles in view of Ravoet fails to teach that the heat exchanger is outside the heating building.
Holtkamp teaches a malting apparatus (Figure 1, Malting Apparatus) where the at least one heat exchanger is arranged outside the heating building (Figure 1, Heat Exchangers 7, 10 and 12 are not located within any compartments or buildings).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles in view of Ravoet to incorporate a heat exchanger as stated in Holtkamp. The Cross-flow glass tube heat exchangers used help with heat recovery which helps reduce fuel consumption (Paragraph 11, Heat Recovery).
Regarding Claim 6, Charles in view of Ravoet fails to teach a malting apparatus with a heat exchanger.
Holtkamp teaches a malting apparatus (Figure 1, Malting Apparatus) where the at least one heat exchanger is configured for heat recovery (Paragraph 11, Cross-flow glass tube heat exchangers is used for heat Recovery).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles in view of Ravoet to incorporate a heat exchanger as stated in Holtkamp. The Cross-flow glass tube heat exchangers used help with heat recovery which helps reduce fuel consumption (Paragraph 11, Heat Recovery).
Claim 7-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles (US Patent No. 2500775) in view of Ravoet (FR Patent No. 590456) and further in view of Graff (DE Patent No. 1078518).
Regarding Claim 7, Charles in view of Ravoet fails to teach that where the heating device comprises a gas burner and/or heating coil and/or a boiler and/or geothermal energy and/or a heat pump and/or a solar system.
Graff teaches a malting plant (Paragraph 1, Malting Plant) where the heating device comprises a gas burner and/or heating coil and/or a boiler and/or geothermal energy and/or a heat pump and/or a solar system (Paragraph 8, Burner 47 can be fueled by gas).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles in view of Ravoet to incorporate a gas burner as stated in Graff . The gas burners heat the air during the drying step of the malting process (Paragraph 8, Burners).
Regarding Claim 8, Charles in view of Ravoet fails to teach that the heating building further comprising an air building for each connected process chamber or germinating/kiln-drying unit, wherein the heat exchanger and/or a germinating fan is/are arranged in the respective air building and wherein the heating device is arranged in the heating building
Graff teaches a malting plant (Paragraph 1, Malting Plant) where the heating building further comprising an air building for each connected process chamber or germinating/kiln-drying unit (Graff: Figure 1, Blower chamber 35 is connected to Chamber 19 which is the germinating/kiln-drying unit), wherein the heat exchanger and/or a germinating fan is/are arranged in the respective air building and wherein the heating device is arranged in the heating building (Graff: Figure 1, Blower 33 is in Blower chamber 35. Figure 1, Burners 47 is in Base 17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles in view of Ravoet to incorporate the arrangement of the heat exchanger, heating building, air building, and heating device as stated in Graff. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Regarding Claim 9, Charles in view of Ravoet and Graff teaches that the heating building further comprises, for each connected process chamber or germinating/kiln-drying unit, an air channel connecting the air building with a respective connected process chamber or germinating/kiln-drying unit (Charles: Figure 1, Chamber 8 and Connects to Fan 1 and air conditioner 2 through duct 4), and the air channel is externally mounted and configured to convey exhaust air from the process chamber or germinating/kiln-drying unit to the germinating fan (Charles: Figure 1, External mounted recirculating air duct 6 introduces air to the fan 1 from the chamber 8 air outlet 5) and/or to convey hot air from the heating device into the process chamber or germinating/kiln-drying unit (Charles: Figure 1, Air blows from Heating Source 3 to Chamber 78 through externally mounted duct 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 7-8 , that Graff, Holtkamp, and Raveot cannot be combined due to structurally differences. However, "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Applicants argues, Page 8-9, that there is no implied teaching that the heating building is detachable from the germinating and drying units. This limitation is taught by Raveot and one cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (MPEP 2145(IV)). Furthermore, Applicants argues against obvious modification of Graff, Holtkamp, and Raveot yet fails to provide evidence as to why.
Applicants argues, Page 9, that Holtkamp only describes components of a malting plant and does not teach a heating building. However, the heating building is taught by Graff. One cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (MPEP 2145(IV)).
Applicants argues, Page 10, that Raveot does not teach that the germinating and drying units are detachable from the heating building in the way the claimed invention claims. However, Claim 1 fails to provide details on how the heating building and the germinating and drying units are connected and disconnected. There is no structure that points to how that connection is achieved.
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 HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761