Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12-3-25 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,295,270 to Miller et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,865,895 to Bass.
Referring to claim 11, Morris et al. discloses a decontamination tank for treating and reducing microbial contamination of a food product, the decontamination tank comprising, a chamber – at 65, for holding an antimicrobial bearing liquid for reducing a microbial contamination on a surface of the food product – see column 2 lines 19-41, column 6 lines 15-60 and column 7 lines 34-48, the chamber being divided into a product area – see at 68, a return liquid area – at 70, and a forced liquid area – at 76, the chamber including a first partition between the product area and the return liquid area – see at 66 in figure 7, and a second partition – at 78, between the product area and the forced liquid area – see figure 7, the first and second partitions preventing the food product from entering the return liquid area or the forced liquid area – see forced liquid area 76 in figure 7, a liquid flow component that recirculates the antimicrobial bearing liquid in the chamber by causing the antimicrobial bearing liquid to flow from the return liquid area to the forced liquid area – see components for liquid flow that are connected at 76 as seen at 54,56 and as seen in column 6 lines 15-60, the antimicrobial bearing liquid exiting the forced liquid area – at 76, under pressure through one or more openings in the second partition – at 78 – see connection of items 76 and 78 in figure 7 and see column 6 lines 28-60, the antimicrobial bearing liquid returning from the product area – at 68, via at least one open are at the first partition – at 66 see below item 66 in figure 7, and an unloader – at 34, configured to remove the food product from the antimicrobial bearing liquid in the product area – at 68, in the chamber and to deposit the food product toward a destination – see figure 7 and column 7 lines 28-60. Morris et al. does not disclose an opening in the first partition. Miller et al. does disclose an opening – at 55, in the first partition – at 46 – see figures 1-5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Morris et al. and add the opening in the first partition as disclosed by Miller et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing proper fluid flow through the partition as desired. Morris et al. as modified by Miller et al. further discloses a propeller type liquid flow component – at 40,58, and the antimicrobial bearing liquid exiting the forced liquid area under low pressure and low head through one or more openings in the second partition – at any other of items 46 as seen in figures 1-5 and column 4 lines 1-65 of Miller et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Morris et al. as modified by Miller et al. and add the propeller type flow component providing for liquid flow with low pressure and low head as disclosed by Miller et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing proper fluid flow through the device and partitions as desired. Morris et al. as modified by Miller et al. further discloses the second partition – 12 extends to the bottom of the chamber – see figure 1 of Morris et al., but does not disclose the second partition extends to a bottom of the chamber. Bass does disclose a partition – at 150, extends to a bottom of the chamber – see figures 4-6. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Morris et al. as modified by Miller et al. and add the partition extending to a bottom of the chamber as disclosed by Bass, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the poultry does not move below and past the partition during processing as desired.
Referring to claim 14, Morris et al. as modified by Miller et al. and Bass further discloses a liquid level in the product area – at 68 being the top of the liquid level in 68, is higher than a liquid level in the return liquid area – at 70 being the level of liquid between the bottom of 70 and item 74 as seen in figure 7, and at least one opening in the first partition corresponds to at least one of a screen or a weir – see at 55 in figures 1-5 of Miller et al. It is noted that applicant has not positively recited in the claim the boundaries of the liquid levels formed by the components of the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Morris et al. as modified by Miller et al. and Bass and add the opening in the first partition as disclosed by Miller et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing proper fluid flow through the partition as desired.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,470,173 to Morris et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,295,270 to Miller et al., further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,841,245 to Wright et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,865,895 to Bass.
Referring to claim 11, Morris et al. discloses a decontamination tank for treating and reducing microbial contamination of a food product, the decontamination tank comprising, a chamber – at 10, for holding an antimicrobial bearing liquid for reducing a microbial contamination on a surface of the food product – see column 2 lines 19-41, the chamber being divided into a product area – see at 10 proximate 20 in figure 1, a return liquid area – see at 10 distal from 20 in figure 1, and a forced liquid area – area where liquid enters the chamber – at 10 (not shown in the drawings), the chamber including a first partition – at 16, between the product area and the return liquid area – see figure 1, and a second partition – any portion of 12, between the product area and the forced liquid area – see figure 1, the first and second partitions preventing the food product from entering the return liquid area or the forced liquid area – the forced liquid area as seen in figure 1, and an unloader – at 20, configured to remove the food product from the antimicrobial bearing liquid in the product area in the chamber and to deposit the food product toward a destination – at 24 – see figure 1. Morris et al. does not disclose a liquid flow component that recirculates the antimicrobial bearing liquid in the chamber by causing the antimicrobial bearing liquid to flow from the return liquid area to the forced liquid area, the antimicrobial bearing liquid exiting the forced liquid area under pressure through one or more openings in the second partition, the antimicrobial bearing liquid returning from the product area via at least one opening in the first partition. Wright et al. does disclose a liquid flow component – at 16, that recirculates the liquid – at 14, in the chamber by causing the liquid to flow from the return liquid area – at 12,13, to the forced liquid area – at the connection of 16 to 12 – see figure 1a, the liquid exiting the forced liquid area under pressure through one or more openings in the second partition – the end wall of 12 corresponding to item 16 as seen in figure 1a. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Morris et al. and add the recirculating liquid flow component of Wright et al., so as to yield the predictable result of conserving the liquid for repeated use. Miller et al. does disclose an opening – at 55, in the first partition – at 46, allowing liquid to flow through the opening – see figures 1-5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Morris et al. and add the opening in the first partition as disclosed by Miller et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing proper fluid flow through the partition as desired. Morris et al. as modified by Miller et al. and Wright et al. further discloses a propeller type liquid flow component – at 40,58, and the antimicrobial bearing liquid exiting the forced liquid area under low pressure and low head through one or more openings in the second partition – at any other of items 46 as seen in figures 1-5 and column 4 lines 1-65 of Miller et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Morris et al. as modified by Miller et al. and Wright et al. and add the propeller type flow component providing for liquid flow with low pressure and low head as disclosed by Miller et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing proper fluid flow through the device and partitions as desired. Morris et al. as modified by Wright et al. and Miller et al. Morris et al. as modified by Wright et al. and Miller et al. further discloses the second partition – 12 extends to the bottom of the chamber – see figure 1 of Morris et al., but does not disclose the second partition extends to a bottom of the chamber. Bass does disclose a partition – at 150, extends to a bottom of the chamber – see figures 4-6. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Morris et al. as modified by Wright et al. and Miller et al. and add the partition extending to a bottom of the chamber as disclosed by Bass, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the poultry does not move below and past the partition during processing as desired.
Referring to claim 12, Morris et al. as modified by Wright et al., Miller et al. and Bass further discloses the destination – at 24, corresponds to an inlet of a second chamber – see figure 1 of Morris et al., for holding a second antimicrobial bearing liquid for reducing the microbial contamination on the surface of the food product, the second antimicrobial bearing liquid having different content from the antimicrobial bearing liquid – see column 2 lines 19-41 and column 6 lines 15-60 of Morris et al.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. as modified by Wright et al., Miller et al. and Bass as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,939,115 to Kounev et al.
Referring to claim 13, Morris et al. as modified by Wright et al., Miller et al. and Bass does not disclose a discharge chute above at least one of the return liquid area or the forced liquid area, the discharge chute containing one or more openings allowing the antimicrobial bearing liquid accompanying the food product deposited by the unloader to drain into the at least one of the return liquid area or the forced liquid area. Kounev et al. does disclose a discharge chute – at 60, above at least one of the return liquid area or the forced liquid area – at 18 and 56 – see figures 2-3, the discharge chute – at 60, containing one or more openings – opening at the end of 60 connected – at 18,28 as seen in figures 2-3, allowing the antimicrobial bearing liquid accompanying the food product deposited by the unloader to drain into the at least one of the return liquid area or the forced liquid area – see figures 2-3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Morris et al. as modified by Wright et al., Miller et al. and Bass and add the discharge chute of Kounev et al., so as to yield the predictable result of conserving the liquid as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1-10 and 15-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 12-3-25 obviates the prior art rejections of claims 1-10 and 15-21 detailed in the last office action dated 9-3-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 12-3-25 obviates the prior art rejections of claims 11-14. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 12-3-25 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643