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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114), the Response, and Amendment filed 02/12/2026 is acknowledged. Receipt of the Response and Amendment filed 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment: (1) the objections to claims 15 and 21 have been withdrawn; (2) the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn; (3) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of claims 20-24 and 33 have been withdrawn; and (4) the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 25 over Kibleur and Lou has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the amendment filed 02/12/2026 stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15, 20-24, 28-36
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 7, 16-19, 26-27
Newly cancelled claims: 12, 14, 25
Amended claims: 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 20-21, 23-24, 28-29, 32
New claims: 34-36
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment filed 03/02/2026 stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15, 20-24, 28-36
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 7, 12, 14, 16-19, 25-27
Newly cancelled claims: None
Amended claims: 1, 20
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15, 20-24, 28-36
Currently rejected claims: 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15, 20-24, 28-36
Allowed claims: None
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation due to Non-Compliance
with 37 CFR 1.121(c) Requirements
The amendment to the claims filed 03/02/2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the claims filed 03/02/2026 do not contain all of the information recited in the claims filed 02/12/2026. For example, claim 28 in the claims filed 03/02/2026 recites “such that the step of increasing the temperature […] filled with air”. This passage was deleted in the claims filed 02/12/2026.
Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of this examination, the claims will be interpreted as if the claims filed 03/02/2026 included all the amendments of the claims filed 02/12/2026.
Claim Warnings
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
Claims 35-36 are objected to because “outer, intermediate and inside layer” should be read as “outer, intermediate and inside layers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15, 28-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 1 recites that a vacuum is created inside the autoclave using a liquid ring vacuum pump. Claims 34, 35, and 36 recite using thermal probes and a control unit to measure temperature.
However, “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."). MPEP 2173.05(p).II.
The aforementioned limitations recited in present claims 1, 34, 35, and 36 mean that the claims claim both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the autoclave in the method of the claims will be interpreted as being an autoclave capable of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave. Measurement of temperature of the agave piñas in the method of claims will be interpreted as being measuring by any suitable device.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the autoclave" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of this examination, ‘the autoclave” will be interpreted as being “the container”.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13, 15, and 28-32 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (“Agave pina cooking methods”, 2017, Tequila Long Island Lou, https://longislandloutequila.com/pina/; IDS citation) as evidenced by Pandit (Pandit, S., “How Autoclaving is Relevant to Liquid Handling Instruments”, 2021, Microlit, https://www.microlit.us/how-autoclaving-is-relevant-to-liquid-handlinginstruments/?srsltid=AfmBOorFQUlaLVu98oQKySuxCulWVwclPAILbXRt2SV52Yc6EKElvv1y; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Lou teaches a process for cooking agave piñas to produce distilled beverages (corresponding to tequila) (page 2). Lou discloses that the processing comprises the steps of: (a) placing a plurality of portions of agave piñas in an autoclave; (b) increasing the temperature inside the autoclave to start the cooking of the agave piñas with steam inside the autoclave; (c) draining at least one batch of liquid solution (corresponding to honeys) from the plurality of portions of the agave piñas from the autoclave; and (d) cooling of the agave either within or outside of the autoclave (paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9). Lou teaches that the agave piñas placed inside the autoclave in step (a) are cut portions of agave piñas (page 8, photo; page 9, photo). Lou does not specify that the steam in the autoclave is injected into the chamber or produced inside the chamber. However, autoclaves are known in the art to function by injecting steam from an external source into the cooking chamber of the autoclave; or by producing steam directly within the cooking chamber of the autoclave. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled practitioner to have injected steam into the cooking chamber or produced steam directly within the cooking chamber of the autoclave; as such, the feature regarding injecting or producing steam inside the chamber of the autoclave is rendered obvious, especially wherein there is no demonstration of criticality of this feature in the present specification.
In regard to the step of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave at least one time; and the step of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave prior to the step of increasing the temperature inside the autoclave to start the cooking of the agave piñas, autoclaves function by removing air from inside the chamber of the autoclave (i.e., creating a vacuum) prior to filling the chamber with steam as evidenced by Pandit (page 2, step 1 labeled “Purged Phase” under the graph). Therefore, the method of Lou involves step of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave at least one time; and a first step of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave prior to the step of increasing the temperature inside the autoclave to start the cooking of the agave piñas as presently claimed.
Lou teaches that the cooking of the agave piñas produces a liquid solution (corresponding to honeys) used to make distilled beverages (corresponding to tequila) (page 8, paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Lou teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the process comprises one step of purging prior to heating of the autoclave chamber as evidenced by Pandit (page 2, step 1 labeled “Purged Phase” under the graph); two steps of purging during the cooking process; and opening the autoclave door after cooking of the agave piñas is finished (Lou, paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9), wherein opening of the autoclave door leads to further release of gaseous content from the autoclave. Therefore, Lou discloses that the process comprises at least two steps of removing gaseous content from the autoclave as presently claimed. It would have been obvious for the two steps of purging during the cooking process disclosed in Lou to comprise the re-creation of a vacuum in order to re-create the initial vacuum environment created by the creation of a vacuum prior to heating of the chamber. Therefore, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Lou teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the process further comprising one or more steps of extracting liquids produced by the agave is carried out during a heating step or after cooking (corresponding to drainage racks collecting the waxes) (paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9).
Regarding claim 10, Lou teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the process further comprises a step of heating up and maintaining a temperature desired for the cooking for a time interval of 8 hours (corresponding to steaming the agaves in as little as 8 hours) (paragraph on page 8), which falls within the claimed time frame.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Lou teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including that the step of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave prior to the step of increasing the temperature inside the autoclave to start cooking of the agave piñas involves removing all air from the autoclave chamber and adding steam to the chamber until a maximum temperature and pressure in the chamber is reached as evidenced by Pandit (page 2, graph and step 1 labeled “Purged Phase” under the graph). This removal of all air from the chamber implies that an amount of air which includes 100 vol.% is removed from the chamber. If “about” were interpreted as implying the default ±10% deviation, removal of “about 90% of said gaseous content” in present claim 28 would require removal of from 81-99 vol.% of the air so that 1-19 vol.% of the gaseous content would remain in the autoclave chamber. According to this interpretation, in disclosing an autoclave, Lou discloses that an amount of air which includes 100 vol% is removed from the autoclave chamber during the first step of gaseous content removal. This amount does not fall within or overlap the presently claimed concentration; however, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Furthermore, Lou also discloses the process comprises two steps of purging during the cooking process as well as opening the autoclave after cooking of the agave piñas is finished (paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9). It would have been obvious for the two steps of purging during the cooking process disclosed in Lou to comprise the re-creation of a vacuum in order to re-create the initial vacuum environment created by the creation of a vacuum prior to heating of the chamber. Therefore, the claim 29 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 30, Lou teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including that the step of increasing temperature inside the autoclave to start cooking of the agave piñas involves adding steam to the chamber until a maximum temperature and pressure in the chamber is reached as evidenced by Pandit (page 2, graph and step 1 labeled “Purged Phase” under the graph). This maximum temperature and pressure created by the steam corresponds to the claimed saturated steam environment such that only the steam is in direct contact with the agave piñas to maximize heat transfer between the steam and the piñas and provide a shorter time needed for cooking the piñas as presently claimed.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kibleur (EP 0006369 A1; IDS citation; English translation relied on for citations) in view of Lou (“Agave pina cooking methods”, 2017, Tequila Long Island Lou, https://longislandloutequila.com/pina/; IDS citation).
Regarding claim 1, Kibleur discloses a process for steam cooking (corresponding to cooking or heating by water vapor) vegetables in a sealed treatment box (page 1, lines 9-11, 47-48), wherein the process is characterized in comprising two steps of creating a vacuum in the sealed box (corresponding to creating a vacuum in the box and subsequently cooling the products in the box through creating a second vacuum) (page 1, lines 35-45). Kibleur discloses that the process comprises: creating a vacuum by evacuating to a pressure of 1-30 mmHg; placing the vegetable products into the sealed box; increasing the temperature inside the sealed box by introducing water vapor (i.e., steam) in order to start the cooking of the vegetables; and cooling of the vegetables within the sealed box (page 2, lines 8-20).
Kibleur also discloses that the sealed treatment box is one whose walls may be heated to temperatures greater than 100°C; and has a construction of a high pressure oven (page 2, line 46-page 3, line 2; page 3, line 6). Kibleur discloses that the process is for steam cooking vegetables, but does not specify that the vegetables being steam cooked are cut agave piñas to produce distilled beverages using the steps recited in present claim 1.
However, Lou teaches a process for cooking agave piñas to produce distilled beverages (corresponding to tequila) (page 2) using an autoclave which can handle the higher temperatures supplied by steam and high pressure (paragraph on page 8). Lou discloses that the processing comprises the steps of: (a) placing a plurality of portions of agave piñas in an autoclave; (b) increasing the temperature inside the autoclave to start the cooking of the agave piñas with steam inside the autoclave; (c) draining at least one batch of liquid solution (corresponding to honeys) from the plurality of portions of the agave piñas from the autoclave; and (d) cooling of the agave either within or outside of the autoclave (paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9). Lou teaches that the agave piñas placed inside the autoclave in step (a) are cut portions of agave piñas (page 8, photo; page 9, photo). Lou does not specify that the steam in the autoclave is injected into the chamber or produced inside the chamber. However, autoclaves are known in the art to function by injecting steam from an external source into the cooking chamber of the autoclave; or by producing steam directly within the cooking chamber of the autoclave. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled practitioner to have injected steam into the cooking chamber or produced steam directly within the cooking chamber of the autoclave; as such, the feature regarding injecting or producing steam inside the chamber of the autoclave is rendered obvious, especially wherein there is no demonstration of criticality of this feature in the present specification. Furthermore, Lou teaches that the cooking of the agave piñas produces a liquid solution (corresponding to honeys) used to make distilled beverages (corresponding to tequila) (page 8, paragraph).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the process of Kibleur to use an autoclave as the sealed treatment box as taught by Lou. Since Kibleur discloses that its process (1) comprises the steps of: placing the vegetable products into the sealed box; increasing the temperature inside the sealed box in order to start the cooking of the vegetables; and cooling of the vegetables within the sealed box (page 2, lines 8-17); and (2) that its sealed treatment box is one whose walls may be heated to temperatures greater than 100°C; and has a construction of a high pressure oven (page 2, line 46-page 3, line 2; page 3, line 6), but does not specify a sealed treatment box capable of performing the claimed process or having the recited features, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Lou in order to determine a suitable sealed treatment box. In consulting the prior art, the practitioner would also find that the vegetable of Kibleur may be agave piñas and that features of the method of the Kibleur may be used to produce the agave of Lou in order to make autoclave cooking of agave faster than other cooking methods (Lou, paragraph on page 8). Therefore, the combination of Kibleur and Lou render the claimed process for cooking agave piñas to produce distilled beverages and the claimed steps recited in present claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Kibleur teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the step of removing gaseous content is carried out by applying vacuum inside the autoclave (corresponding to creating a vacuum in the box and subsequently cooling the products in the box through creating a second vacuum) (page 1, lines 35-45). Therefore, Kibleur renders the creation of a vacuum inside the autoclave by removal of gaseous content from inside the autoclave as recited in the present claim obvious.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Kibleur teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the process comprising creating a vacuum in the box by evacuating air; increasing the temperature inside the autoclave by introducing steam into the box to start the cooking of the agave piñas with steam inside the autoclave (Kibleur, page 1, lines 35-42; page 2, 18-20; Lou, the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9); purging the autoclave; and increasing the temperature in the autoclave (corresponding to purging followed by more steam) (Lou, the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9).
It would have been obvious for the two steps of purging during the cooking process disclosed in Lou to comprise the re-creation of a vacuum in order to re-create the initial vacuum environment created by the creation of a vacuum prior to heating of the chamber. Therefore, the combination of prior art discloses that the process comprises at least two steps of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave and at least two steps of increasing the temperature in the autoclave, wherein a first step of creating a vacuum is carried out before the first step of increasing temperature (i.e., creating a vacuum and then introducing steam); and a second step of creating a vacuum is carried out after the first step of increasing temperature and before the second step of increasing temperature (i.e., purging the autoclave and then applying more steam) as recited in present claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 6, Kibleur teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the step of creating a vacuum provides a reduction of the maximum pressure difference within the autoclave (corresponding to cooking and subsequently cooling the products in the box through creating a second vacuum) (page 1, lines 35-45) from a cooking pressure of 0.04-9.81 bar (corresponding to pressurization between 33 mmHg and 10 kg/cm2) and a cooking temperature of 30-150°C, such as 110°C (page 2, lines 6-9, 13-17; page 3, lines 39-40). Therefore, the method of the prior art is considered to meet the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, modified Kibleur teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the cooling of the agave (Lou, the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9) comprises a step of vacuum cooling which is the reduction of pressure and temperature within the autoclave by direct removal or decrease of gaseous content from the autoclave (Kibleur, page 1, lines 44-45; page 2, lines 28-30). A skilled practitioner would have been motivated to use vacuum cooling to cool the agave since vacuum cooling provides a good temperature reduction speed (Kibleur, page 3, lines 29-31), thereby allowing the autoclave method of cooking agave to be faster than other methods of cooking agave (Lou, paragraph on page 8). Kibleur also discloses that at least a portion of the steam within the autoclave condensates and the temperature of the steam inside the autoclave is decreased (page 2, lines 1-2, 28-30).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kibleur (EP 0006369 A1; IDS citation; English translation relied on for citations) in view of Lou (“Agave pina cooking methods”, 2017, Tequila Long Island Lou, https://longislandloutequila.com/pina/; IDS citation) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Soto (Garcia-Soto et al., “Kinetic Study of the Thermal Hydrolysis of Agave salmiana for Mezcal Production”, 2011, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 59, pages 7333-7340; previously cited).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, modified Kibleur discloses the invention as described above in claim 4. The prior art does not disclose that the temperature in the second step of increasing temperature is higher than the temperature in the first step of increasing temperature.
However, Soto discloses that the cooking temperature of the agave piñas influences the fructan hydrolysis and furan concentration, which ultimately affect the ethanol yield in the distilled beverage made from the cooked the agave piñas (Abstract).
As the fructan hydrolysis, furan concentration, and ethanol yield are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the cooking temperature of the agave piñas, the cooking temperature would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed the cooking temperatures used in the first and second steps of increasing temperature cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the cooking temperatures in the method of modified Kibleur to obtain the desired balance between fructan hydrolysis, furan concentration, and ethanol yield as taught by Soto (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 15 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kibleur (EP 0006369 A1; IDS citation; English translation relied on for citations) in view of Lou (“Agave pina cooking methods”, 2017, Tequila Long Island Lou, https://longislandloutequila.com/pina/; IDS citation) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and in further view of Brown (US 3,239,200; previously cited).
Regarding claims 15 and 32, modified Kibleur teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the cooling of the agave (Lou, the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9) comprises a step of extracting heat by vacuum cooling (Kibleur, page 1, lines 44-45). The prior art does not teach that thermal energy from the extracted heat is recovered in the form of a heated cooling medium comprising water or that the thermal energy is usable in the cooking step or a further apparatus as recited in present claims 15 and 32.
However, Brown teaches an autoclave comprising a heat exchange device, wherein cold water is introduced into the chamber of the autoclave or into a chamber adjacent to the autoclave; and wherein the cold water recovers the thermal energy from the steam used within the autoclave (column 1, lines 8-10, 33-37). Brown teaches that the boiler feeder water is now preheated by having absorbed the thermal energy from the steam; and that the preheated water may be introduced into the boiler to produce steam for the next operating cycle of the autoclave (column 1, lines 38-45). Therefore, Brown teaches thermal energy from the extracted heat is recovered in the form of a heated cooling medium comprising water; and that the thermal energy is usable in the cooking step or a further apparatus as recited in present claims 15 and 32.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Kibleur by recovering thermal energy as disclosed by Brown. Since Brown discloses that such a modification provides benefits such as allowing for the pressure within the autoclave to be quickly decreased to atmospheric pressure; and preventing heat waste, fog hazard, and noise nuisance (column 1, lines 11-19, 43-46), a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to incorporate the thermal energy recovery of Brown into the method of modified Kibleur, thereby rendering present claims 15 and 32 obvious.
Claims 20-22, 24, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (“Agave pina cooking methods”, 2017, Tequila Long Island Lou, https://longislandloutequila.com/pina/; IDS citation) in view of Kibleur (EP 0006369 A1; IDS citation; English translation relied on for citations) and Brown (US 3,239,200; previously cited).
Regarding claims 20 and 33, Lou teaches a process for cooking agave piñas to produce distilled beverages (corresponding to tequila) (page 2). Lou discloses that the processing comprises the steps of: cooking a plurality of agave piñas; obtaining at least one batch of liquid solution (corresponding to honeys) from the plurality of portions of the agave piñas from the autoclave; and cooling the cooked agave by extracting heat from the agave piñas (paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9). Lou teaches that the agave piñas placed inside the autoclave in step (a) are cut portions of agave piñas (page 8, photo; page 9, photo). Furthermore, Lou teaches that the cooking of the agave piñas produces a liquid solution (corresponding to honeys) used to make distilled beverages (corresponding to tequila) (page 8, paragraph).
Lou discloses that cooking agave piñas with an autoclave is a faster method of cooking agave piñas than other methods (paragraph on page 8), but Lou does not disclose that heat is extracted from the cooked agave piñas by vacuum cooling; that the thermal energy from the extracted heat is recovered in the form of a heated cooling medium from a heat exchanger; or that the recovered thermal energy is usable in the cooking step or a further apparatus as recited in present claims 20 and 33.
However, Kibleur discloses a process for steam cooking (corresponding to cooking or heating by water vapor) vegetables in a sealed treatment box (page 1, lines 9-11, 47-48), wherein the process comprises: placing the vegetable products into the sealed box; and vacuum cooling the vegetables within the sealed box (page 1, lines 35-45; page 2, lines 8-17) to achieve a good cooling speed (page 3, lines 29-30). Kibleur also discloses that the sealed treatment box is one whose walls may be heated to temperatures greater than 100°C; and has a construction of a high pressure oven (page 2, line 46-page 3, line 2; page 3, line 6).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have modified the process of cooking agave piñas of Lou by using vacuum cooling as taught by Kibleur. Since Lou discloses the steps of cooking agave piñas in an autoclave and then cooling the agave piñas in a method that is faster than other cooking methods (paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9), but does not disclose a method of cooling, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Kibleur in order to determine a method of cooling vegetables in a sealed treatment box after cooking which would still allow for the method to be faster than other cooking methods. Therefore, the claimed vacuum cooling of Kibleur as the cooling step of Lou renders the claimed vacuum cooling recited in present claim 20 obvious.
The combination of Lou and Kibleur does not disclose that the thermal energy from the extracted heat is recovered in the form of a heated cooling medium from a heat exchanger; or that the recovered thermal energy is usable in the cooking step or a further apparatus as recited in present claims 20 and 33.
However, Brown teaches an autoclave comprising a heat exchange device, wherein cold water is introduced into the chamber of the autoclave or into a chamber adjacent to the autoclave; and wherein the cold water recovers the thermal energy from the steam used within the autoclave (column 1, lines 8-10, 33-37). Brown teaches that the boiler feeder water is now preheated by having absorbed the thermal energy from the steam; and that the preheated water may be introduced into the boiler to produce steam for the next operating cycle of the autoclave (column 1, lines 38-45). Therefore, Brown teaches thermal energy from the extracted heat is recovered in the form of a heated cooling medium from a heat exchanger; and that the thermal energy is usable in the cooking step or a further apparatus as recited in present claims 20 and 33.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Lou by recovering thermal energy as disclosed by Brown. Since Brown discloses that such a modification provides benefits such as allowing for the pressure within the autoclave to be quickly decreased to atmospheric pressure; and preventing heat waste, fog hazard, and noise nuisance (column 1, lines 11-19, 43-46), a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to incorporate the thermal energy recovery of Brown into the method of modified Lou, thereby rendering present claims 20 and 33 obvious.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Lou discloses the invention as described above in claim 20, including the cooked agave piñas are arranged inside a closed container (corresponding to autoclave) and steam cooking the agave piñas (paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9). Kibleur discloses that the vacuum cooling step comprises reducing the pressure and temperature within the container by directly removing or decreasing gaseous content from the container (corresponding to vacuum) (page 1, lines 45-45; page 2, lines 16-17); and that at least a portion of the steam within the container condensates (page 2, line 1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Lou discloses the invention as described above in claim 20, including the autoclave comprising a heat exchange device for extracting heat from the steamed agave piñas (Brown, column 1, lines 8-10, 33-37). Kibleur teaches that the cooking occurs at temperatures of 30-150°C, such as 110°C (page 2, lines 6-9; page 3, lines 39-40) and that the product may be subsequently cooled to the desired temperature after cooking (page 2, lines 16-17). From these disclosures, Kibleur at least suggests that vacuum cooling may be carried out until the temperature inside the core portion of the agave is below 110°C, which encompasses the claimed temperature of 50-70°C. Kibleur also discloses that the absolute pressure used during vacuum cooling is maintained until the desired cooled temperature is reached and discloses an absolute pressure of 0.04-9.81 bar when cooking (corresponding to pressurization between 33 mmHg and 10 kg/cm2) (page 2, lines 13-17). Therefore, Kibleur at least suggests that vacuum cooling may be carried out at a pressure lower than 9.81 bar, which encompasses the claimed absolute pressure of 0.1-0.3 bar, especially wherein Kibleur discloses that vacuum cooling is performed according to a specific program of which several are possible (page 2, lines 16-17; page 3, line 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP §2144.05.I.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (“Agave pina cooking methods”, 2017, Tequila Long Island Lou, https://longislandloutequila.com/pina/; IDS citation) in view of Kibleur (EP 0006369 A1; IDS citation; English translation relied on for citations) and Brown (US 3,239,200; previously cited) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Terra (“Autoclaves for the food industry”, 2021, Terra Food Tech, https://web.archive.org/web/202109l8l 60058/https://www.terrafoodtech.com/en/autoclaves-for-the-food-industry/).
Regarding claim 23, Lou discloses the invention as described above in claim 20, including the cooked agave piñas are arranged inside a closed container (corresponding to autoclave) and steam cooking the agave piñas (Lou, paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9). Kibleur discloses that the vacuum cooling step comprises reducing the pressure and temperature within the container by directly removing or decreasing gaseous content from the container (corresponding to vacuum) (page 1, lines 45-45; page 2, lines 16-17).
Lou does not disclose that the agave piñas are placed inside a perforated basket inside the closed container.
However, Terra teaches that food may be placed in perforated baskets inside of an autoclave (page 2, 1st photo).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Lou to comprise placing the agave piñas in a perforated basket as taught by Terra. Since Lou discloses cooking agave piñas in an autoclave wherein liquid from the agave piñas may drain (page 8, paragraph), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that a perforated basket may be used for holding the agave piñas inside the autoclave as doing so would allow for placement and removal of the agave piñas in one motion, thereby improving efficiency. Therefore, the claimed perforated basket is rendered obvious.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (“Agave pina cooking methods”, 2017, Tequila Long Island Lou, https://longislandloutequila.com/pina/; IDS citation) as evidenced by Pandit (Pandit, S., “How Autoclaving is Relevant to Liquid Handling Instruments”, 2021, Microlit, https://www.microlit.us/how-autoclaving-is-relevant-to-liquid-handlinginstruments/?srsltid=AfmBOorFQUlaLVu98oQKySuxCulWVwclPAILbXRt2SV52Yc6EKElvv1y; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by the specification filed 10/19/2022.
Regarding claim 31, Lou teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including draining one batch of a liquid solution which contains dust and wax; and draining a second batch of a liquid solution which contains the juices of the agave piñas (the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9). Lou does not specify that the first batch is discarded while the second batch is kept to produce the distilled beverage, though such steps are presumable due to the first batch containing dust and wax while the second contains agave pina juice. Furthermore, discarding the first batch and storing the second batch to be further processed with the cooked agave to produce distilled beverages are well-known steps in the art as evidenced by the specification (page 1, line 29- page 2, line 3). Therefore, the claim is rendered obvious.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (“Agave pina cooking methods”, 2017, Tequila Long Island Lou, https://longislandloutequila.com/pina/; IDS citation) as evidenced by Pandit (Pandit, S., “How Autoclaving is Relevant to Liquid Handling Instruments”, 2021, Microlit, https://www.microlit.us/how-autoclaving-is-relevant-to-liquid-handlinginstruments/?srsltid=AfmBOorFQUlaLVu98oQKySuxCulWVwclPAILbXRt2SV52Yc6EKElvv1y; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Terra (“Autoclaves for the food industry”, 2021, Terra Food Tech, https://web.archive.org/web/202109l8l 60058/https://www.terrafoodtech.com/en/autoclaves-for-the-food-industry/) and Gallary (Gallary, C., “4 Important Tips for Using Cooking Thermometers”, 2015, the kitchn, https://www.thekitchn.com/4-important-tips-for-using-cookingthermometers-223578).
Regarding claims 34 and 35, Lou teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the cooked agave piñas are arranged inside a closed container (corresponding to autoclave) and steam cooking the agave piñas (paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9). Lou also teaches a desire to cook the center of the agave piñas without overcooking or burning the outside of the agave piñas (the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9).
Lou does not disclose that the agave piñas are placed inside a perforated basket inside the closed container as recited in present claims 34 and 35. Lou also does not teach that the method comprises using thermal probes and a control unit connected to the thermal probes to collect data measuring the temperature on the outer layer, intermediate layer, and inside layer of the agave piñas as recited in present claims 34 and 35.
However, Terra teaches that food may be placed in perforated baskets inside of an autoclave which allows the food to be placed in or removed from the autoclave in one movement (page 2, 1st photo).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Lou to comprise placing the agave piñas in a perforated basket as taught by Terra. Since Lou discloses cooking agave piñas in an autoclave wherein liquid from the agave piñas may drain (page 8, paragraph), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that a perforated basket may be used for holding the agave piñas inside the autoclave as doing so would allow for placement and removal of the agave piñas in one motion, thereby improving efficiency. Therefore, the claimed perforated basket recited in present claims 34 and 35 is rendered obvious.
The combination of Lou and Terra does not teach that the method comprises using thermal probes and a control unit connected to the thermal probes to collect data measuring the temperature on the outer layer, intermediate layer, and inside layer of the agave piñas as recited in present claims 34 and 35.
However, Gallary discloses that thermal probes (corresponding to food thermometers such as the one shown in the photo on page 1 and the photo on page 4) provide reassurance that food is cooked properly; and that thermal probes are an important part of cooking (page 2, paragraph above photo; page 23 1st bullet). Gallary states that thermal probes may be digital (page 3, 1st bullet). Therefore, Gallary suggests thermal probes having a control unit which collects data to measure temperature. Gallary states that the thermal probes may be inserted into the center of foods (page 3, 1st bullet).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Lou to include measuring the temperature of the layers of the agave piñas using thermal probes as taught by Gallary. Since Lou teaches a desire to cook the center of the agave piñas without overcooking or burning the outside of the agave piñas (the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9), a skilled practitioner would understand that the thermal probes disclosed by Gallary would monitor the temperatures of the center layers and outer layers of the agave piñas in order to determine when the agave piñas are properly cooked and not burned. Therefore, using thermal probes and a control unit connected to the thermal probes to collect data measuring the temperature on the outer layer, intermediate layer, and inside layer of the agave piñas as recited in present claims 34 and 35 are rendered obvious.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (“Agave pina cooking methods”, 2017, Tequila Long Island Lou, https://longislandloutequila.com/pina/; IDS citation) in view of Terra (“Autoclaves for the food industry”, 2021, Terra Food Tech, https://web.archive.org/web/202109l8l 60058/https://www.terrafoodtech.com/en/autoclaves-for-the-food-industry/) and Gallary (Gallary, C., “4 Important Tips for Using Cooking Thermometers”, 2015, the kitchn, https://www.thekitchn.com/4-important-tips-for-using-cookingthermometers-223578) as evidenced by Pandit (Pandit, S., “How Autoclaving is Relevant to Liquid Handling Instruments”, 2021, Microlit, https://www.microlit.us/how-autoclaving-is-relevant-to-liquid-handlinginstruments/?srsltid=AfmBOorFQUlaLVu98oQKySuxCulWVwclPAILbXRt2SV52Yc6EKElvv1y; previously cited).
Regarding claim 36, Lou teaches a process for cooking agave piñas to produce distilled beverages (corresponding to tequila) (page 2). Lou discloses that the processing comprises the steps of: (a) placing a plurality of portions of agave piñas in an autoclave; (b) increasing the temperature inside the autoclave to start the cooking of the agave piñas with steam inside the autoclave; (c) draining at least one batch of liquid solution (corresponding to honeys) from the plurality of portions of the agave piñas from the autoclave; and (d) cooling of the agave either within or outside of the autoclave (paragraphs and pictures on page 8; picture and the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9). Lou teaches that the agave piñas placed inside the autoclave in step (a) are cut portions of agave piñas (page 8, photo; page 9, photo).
Lou does not specify that the steam in the autoclave is injected into the chamber or produced inside the chamber. However, autoclaves are known in the art to function by injecting steam from an external source into the cooking chamber of the autoclave; or by producing steam directly within the cooking chamber of the autoclave. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled practitioner to have injected steam into the cooking chamber or produced steam directly within the cooking chamber of the autoclave; as such, the feature regarding injecting or producing steam inside the chamber of the autoclave is rendered obvious, especially wherein there is no demonstration of criticality of this feature in the present specification.
In regard to the step of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave at least one time; and the step of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave prior to the step of increasing the temperature inside the autoclave to start the cooking of the agave piñas, autoclaves function by removing air from inside the chamber of the autoclave (i.e., creating a vacuum) prior to filling the chamber with steam as evidenced by Pandit (page 2, step 1 labeled “Purged Phase” under the graph). Therefore, the method of Lou involves step of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave at least one time; and a first step of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave prior to the step of increasing the temperature inside the autoclave to start the cooking of the agave piñas as presently claimed.
Lou also teaches a desire to cook the center of the agave piñas without overcooking or burning the outside of the agave piñas (the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9).
Lou does not disclose that the agave piñas are placed inside a perforated basket inside the closed container. Lou also does not teach that the method comprises using thermal probes and a control unit connected to the thermal probes to collect data measuring the temperature on the outer layer, intermediate layer, and inside layer of the agave piñas.
However, Terra teaches that food may be placed in perforated baskets inside of an autoclave which allows the food to be placed in or removed from the autoclave in one movement (page 2, 1st photo).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Lou to comprise placing the agave piñas in a perforated basket as taught by Terra. Since Lou discloses cooking agave piñas in an autoclave wherein liquid from the agave piñas may drain (page 8, paragraph), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that a perforated basket may be used for holding the agave piñas inside the autoclave as doing so would allow for placement and removal of the agave piñas in one motion, thereby improving efficiency. Therefore, the claimed perforated basket is rendered obvious.
The combination of Lou and Terra does not teach that the method comprises using thermal probes and a control unit connected to the thermal probes to collect data measuring the temperature on the outer layer, intermediate layer, and inside layer of the agave piñas.
However, Gallary discloses that thermal probes (corresponding to food thermometers such as the one shown in the photo on page 1 and the photo on page 4) provide reassurance that food is cooked properly; and that thermal probes are an important part of cooking (page 2, paragraph above photo; page 23 1st bullet). Gallary states that thermal probes may be digital (page 3, 1st bullet). Therefore, Gallary suggests thermal probes having a control unit which collects data to measure temperature. Gallary states that the thermal probes may be inserted into the center of foods (page 3, 1st bullet).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Lou to include measuring the temperature of the layers of the agave piñas using thermal probes as taught by Gallary. Since Lou teaches a desire to cook the center of the agave piñas without overcooking or burning the outside of the agave piñas (the method of Sophie Decobecq on page 9), a skilled practitioner would understand that the thermal probes disclosed by Gallary would monitor the temperatures of the center layers and outer layers of the agave piñas in order to determine when the agave piñas are properly cooked and not burned. Therefore, using thermal probes and a control unit connected to the thermal probes to collect data measuring the temperature on the outer layer, intermediate layer, and inside layer of the agave piñas are rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments filed 02/12/2026
Claim Objections: Applicant amended the claims to address the objections. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(a) of claim 8: Applicant amended the claim to fully address the rejection. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 15, 20-24, 28-29, and 32-33: Applicant amended the claims to fully address the rejections as described in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the rejections of claims 20-24 and 33 are withdrawn. However, the remaining claims stand rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1, 3, 9-10, and 28-30 over Lou as evidenced by Pandit: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite that the agave piñas placed in the autoclave are cut. Applicant argued that neither Lou nor Pandit discloses this features (Applicant’s Remarks, page 11, 1st paragraph – page 12, 3rd paragraph.
However, Lou discloses that the agave piñas are cut prior to placing them inside the autoclave as shown in the pictures on pages 8 and 9. Therefore, the prior art does disclose this feature.
Applicant then argued that the Pandit reference relates to sterilizing liquid handling instruments which is a completely different art and process than the art and process discussed in Lou. Since Lou and Pandit are non-analogous, Applicant argued that a skilled practitioner would have no reason to combine the teachings of Lou and Pandit (Applicant’s Remarks, page 12, 3rd paragraph – page 13, 1st paragraph).
However, it is known in the art that that autoclaves are used for sterilization and cooking of food as well as for the sterilization of equipment as demonstrated by the disclosures of Lou and Pandit in using autoclaves for cooking of food and sterilization of equipment, respectively. Since both references disclose autoclaves and the autoclaves used for both purposes function in the same way, Lou and Pandit are analogous to one another.
Applicant then argued that Lou does not teaching creating a vacuum in the autoclave prior to increasing the temperature and cooking the agave piñas; and that there is not suggestion in Pandit that a step of purging in sterilization of equipment in an autoclave would improve a cooking process (Applicant’s Remarks, page 13, 2nd paragraph – page 14, 5th paragraph).
However, since Lou discloses autoclaves and autoclaves are known to function by removing air from inside the chamber of the autoclave (i.e., creating a vacuum) prior to filling the chamber with steam as evidenced by Pandit (page 2, step 1 labeled “Purged Phase” under the graph), Lou at least discloses that the method comprises creating a vacuum. Furthermore, (1) as demonstrated in the rejection of claim 1, (2) as stated in the response above, and (3) as is known in the art, autoclaves are used for sterilization and cooking of food as well as for the sterilization of equipment. Therefore, by using an autoclave wherein autoclaves are known to function as described by Pandit, it would be obvious for the autoclave of Lou to operate by creating a vacuum prior to increasing the temperature within the chamber of the autoclave.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be rendered obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-14, and 25 over Kibleur and Lou: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that Lou is distinguished from the subject matter of claim 1 as discussed in the arguments relating to Lou and Pandit (applicant’s Remarks, page 14, 6th-8th paragraphs).
However, Lou has been shown to disclose the features of claim 1 with evidentiary support from Pandit as discussed above.
Applicant then argued that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Kibleur directed to thermal treatment of goods with the teachings of Lou directed to producing tequila. Applicant argued that thermal treatment used in the treatment of vegetables disclosed by Kibleur falls short of cooking agave piñas to convert the agave piñas into tequila. As such, Applicant argued that Kibleur cannot disclose increasing the temperature inside the autoclave to start cooking of agave piñas; draining liquid from the agave piñas while cooking; or cooking to produce distilled beverages as recited in preset claim 1 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 15, 1st paragraph – page 16, 5th paragraph).
However, the Examiner points out that the presently claimed method is not converting agave piñas into a distilled beverages, rather the method is producing a liquid formed during the cooking of the agave piñas wherein the liquid is distilled to produce a beverage. Therefore, the claimed method merely requires the agave piñas to become cooked agave piñas. Kibleur discloses that its method comprises thermal treatment for cooking (page 1, lines 47-48). Although, Kibleur does not disclose collecting liquid from the cooked foods, Kibleur does not exclude this step from its cooking process and Kibleur does not limit the purpose of cooking the food; therefore, the combination of Kibleur and Lou would render such a step of collecting liquid from the cooking food obvious.
Applicant then argued that Kibleur and Lou are not analogous to the claimed invention (Applicant’s Remarks, page 16, 6th paragraph – page 17, 1st paragraph).
However, the claimed invention is directed to producing a distilled beverage through cooking of agave piñas in an autoclave. Lou is directed to producing a distilled beverage through cooking of agave piñas in an autoclave. Therefore, Lou is analogous to the claimed invention. Kibleur is directed to cooking food in a sealed box comprising creating a vacuum inside the sealed box and heating the inside of the sealed box with steam to cook the food. The method of the claimed invention comprises cooking food (i.e., agave piñas) in a sealed box and creating a vacuum and heating the inside of the sealed box with steam to cook the food. Therefore, Kibleur is analogous to the claimed invention.
Applicant then argued that neither Kibleur nor Lou disclose creating a vacuum inside an autoclave using a liquid ring vacuum pump (Applicant’s Remarks, page 17, 2nd-6th paragraphs).
However, as described above in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 1, the limitation requiring a vacuum be created using a liquid ring vacuum pump mean that claim 1 claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the autoclave in the method of the claims is interpreted as being an autoclave capable of creating a vacuum inside the autoclave.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be rendered obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 5 over Kibleur, Lou, and Soto: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that Soto does not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Kibleur and Lou (Applicant’s Remarks, page 17, 7th paragraph – page 18, 4th paragraph).
However, Kibleur and Lou have been shown to render the features of claims 1 and 4 obvious as discussed in the prior art rejections and the responses above. Soto is continued to be relied on merely for its teachings regarding the additional features of claim 5.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be rendered obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 15 and 32 over Kibleur, Lou, and Brown: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that Brown does not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Kibleur and Lou (Applicant’s Remarks, page 18, 5th paragraph – page 19, 3rd paragraph).
However, Kibleur and Lou have been shown to render the features of claims 1 and 4 obvious as discussed in the prior art rejections and the responses above. Soto is continued to be relied on merely for its teachings regarding the additional features of claim 5.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be rendered obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 20-24 and 33 over Lou, Kibleur, and Brown: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that the combination of Lou and Kibleur does not teach that the thermal energy from the extracted heat is recovered in the form of a heated cooling medium from a heat exchanger; or that the recovered thermal energy is usable in the cooking step or a further process. Applicant argued that Brown only uses recovery of heat for the next cycle in the same equipment (Applicant’s Remarks, page 19, 4th paragraph – page 20, 7th paragraph).
However, 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). The features of claim 20 are rendered obvious by the combination of Lou, Kibleur, and Brown, not by Lou and Kibleur. Brown is shown to render recovering thermal energy from the extracted heat in the form of a heated cooling medium from a heat exchanger. Brown also discloses that the thermal energy is usable in a further apparatus since it disclose using the recovered heat in the same equipment. The present claims neither identify what the further apparatus is nor require the recovered the thermal energy to actually be used in that further apparatus. Therefore, even if Brown discloses using the recovered heat in another cycle of the same apparatus, Brown is still considered to meet the claim limitation.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be rendered obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 31over Lou as evidenced by Pandit and the specification filed 10/19/2022: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that the comments in the rejection do not make up for the aforementioned deficiencies of Loy as evidenced by Pandit in relation to claim 1 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 20, 8th paragraph – page 21, 2nd paragraph).
However, Lou as evidence by Pandit have been shown to render the features of present claim 1 obvious as described in the prior art rejection and responses above.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be rendered obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claims 34-36: Applicant believes that these claims are allowable.
However, claims 34-36 stand rejected as written herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights