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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines of drawings 1-3 are not sufficiently dark and dense for reproduction. 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.
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 4 “plat” should be “plate”. 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 limitation(s) is/are: “control apparatus” and “detection apparatus” in claims 1 and 4 respectively.
Note that other limitations which include a nonce term and function such as “transfer apparatus” and “electric field generation apparatus” are NOT interpreted under 35 USC §112f as further limitations define the structure that performs the function.
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 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 4-8 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 4 (and by dependency 4-6 and 8), the term “relatively closer to the inlet” is indefinite.” Specifically, what is the “detection apparatus” farther away from in order to be closer to the inlet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 2017210327 to Ostermeier in view of CN 111700108 to Zou.
Regarding claim 1,
A food preservation apparatus, comprising: a case body (7), forming an accommodating space inside (area interior of 7 in which food 2 is shown in Fig. 4), the case body comprising an inlet (follow conveyer arrows) and an outlet (follow conveyor arrows) in communication with the accommodating space (Fig. 4); a transfer apparatus (13, 16, 17, 18, 25), comprising a conveyor belt (16) and a drive assembly (18), wherein part of the conveyor belt is located in the accommodating space (Fig. 4), and the drive assembly is connected to the conveyor belt (Fig. 4), and drives the conveyor belt to move in a direction from the inlet to the outlet (Translation page 6 final paragraph); at least one electric field generation apparatus (11, 12), configured to generate a local electric field (“homogenous electric field can be generated”), the electric field generation apparatus being located in the accommodating space (Fig. 4), and comprising a plurality of electrode plates (11); and a control apparatus (15), electrically connected to the drive assembly and the plurality of electrode plates, the control apparatus being configured to control the drive assembly and the plurality of electrode plates to actuate (The voltage source 13 is via a control line 14 with a central control unit 15) and the plurality of electrode plates is arranged at intervals on the insulating substrate in the direction from the inlet to the outlet (Fig. 4, they are arranged at an interval at the top and bottom and extend from inlet to outlet).
Ostermeier shows a schematic level drawing in Fig. 4 and thus does not show the specific physical orientation and structure of the electrodes and thus does not teach: an insulating substrate and wherein the insulating substrate is disposed on an inner side wall surface of the case body on a different side from the part of the conveyor belt.
Zou shows that electrodes (75) for a sterilization field (abstract) can be placed on an insulating substrate (72) that is disposed on an inner side wall surface of a case body on a different side part of the conveyor belt (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ostermeier to include an insulating substrate in the manner taught by Zou, for the purpose of preventing ground faults between the case and the electrode thus enhancing safety.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostermeier and Zou and in further view of USPUB 20020088800 to Miller.
Regarding claim 2
Ostermeier as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach the case body comprises at least one electric partition, the at least one electric partition is electrically connected to the control apparatus, and divides the accommodating space into a plurality of subspaces, and one of the electric field generation apparatuses is respectively disposed in the plurality of subspaces.
With respect to the partition, it is known from Miller to provide electrically operated doors “partitions” connected to a control apparatus (1) which partition cavities along a conveyor belt (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an electrically controlled partition as required by the claim to further modify Ostermeier, as this is nothing more than the addition of known structure (a partition for a conveyor cavity) added by means of known methods (electrical control) to produce a predictable result (a partitioned cavity).
As to the partitions separating the accommodating space into a plurality of subspaces and one of the electric field generation apparatuses is respectively disposed in the plurality of subspaces. This can be achieved from a duplication of the structures of the case body and all internal components of Ostermeir along the conveyor with the interior space of each collectively interpreted as the “accommodating” space. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ostermeir to duplicate the case body and all internal electronics along with the now added partition from Miller along the conveyor belt to arrive at a plurality of subspaces each with an electrode and partition as required by the claims.
Regarding claim 7
Ostermeier as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach wherein a valve is respectively disposed in each of the inlet and outlet of the case body to respectively open or close the inlet and the outlet.
it is known from Miller to provide electrically operated doors “valves” connected to a control apparatus (1) disposed in each of the inlet and outlet of the case body to respectively open or close the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 1 see inlet and outlet doors and respective actuators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an electrically controlled valve at the inlet and outlet as taught by Miller for the purposes of providing an enclosure for the electromagnetic radiation thus enhancing safety.
Claim interpretation note: Applicant appears to be using the term “valve” rather broadly. The “valves” shown are simply doors at the inlet and outlet (see numeral 14). However, after further research it appears that this is a known, if broad, use of the term valve to describe anything which controls the flow of another device. As such the Examiner has adopted the broader definition during examination as this is only definition which would have support under 35 USC §112 (a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 USC §112 (b), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to address the issue under 35 USC §112b.
The prior art does not teach or make obvious the “pick-up ports” in the particular side wall location and with a box cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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 "Ned" 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761