DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, in line 4 before “a phased array” delete “transmitter elements of” to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 21, delete “, wherein two of the two or more SS MW generators are configured as computer controllable SS MW generators, coupled to a computer controller,” from line 4 and insert into line 7 after “a hydrostatic pressure of the immersion liquid,” in order to place the claim in better grammatical form.
In line 8, delete “controllable” and insert “controllability” to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 23, in line 5 before “pair” insert “at least one” for consistency with line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-23 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 21, in line 11 the limitation “the two or more computer controllable of the SS MW generators” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the limitation means and since the antecedent basis is unclear. Line 4 recites “two of the two or more SS MW generators are configured as computer controllable”, not “the two or more computer controllable”. That is, line 11 limits the number of “computer controllable SS MW generators” to a total of two, and does not indicate additional computer controllable generators. The rejection can be overcome by deleting “or more” and “of the” from line 11.
In line 14, the limitation “the two or more of the computer controllable SS MW generators” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated above.
In line 15, the limitation “the two or more computer controllable SS MW generators” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated above.
In lines 16-17, the limitation “the two or more computer controllable SS MW generators” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated above.
Regarding claim 23, in line 1 the limitation “the two or more computer controllable SS MW generators” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated above.
Claim 22 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Erp et al. (US 2021/030,7367 A1), hereon referred to as “Erp”, in view of Tang (US 2005/0127068 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Erp teaches a method for pasteurizing or sterilizing a food substance using a multitude, solid-state RF source of microwave (MW) energy (abstract; paragraphs 6-7), the method comprising conveying items and applying MW energy from a plurality of solid-state (SS) MW generators (paragraph 15), the generators configured as computer controllable generators coupled to a controller for changeability of output MW energy amplitude, frequency, and phase (paragraph 17), where the generators are controlled to heat different parts of the food such that uneven energy distribution is prevented (paragraph 8).
Erp does not teach the food is packaged, conveying the packages through an immersion liquid, subjecting the packages to heat conduction to or from the liquid, and applying MW energy while the packages are conveyed through the liquid.
Tang teaches a method of sterilization or pasteurization of items of packaged food (abstract), the method comprising conveying the items through an immersion liquid, the immersed items being subject to heat conduction to or from the immersion liquid, where applying MW energy to heat packages in liquid improve heating uniformity and reduce edge heating (paragraphs 9 and 81) and applying MW energy from a plurality of SS MW generators (paragraph 75) to the items while the items are conveyed through the immersion liquid and subject to a hydrostatic pressure of the immersion liquid (paragraphs 83, 85, 96 and 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Erp to treat packaged foods conveyed through liquid since the prior art recognizes the process for pasteurization or sterilization of packaged foods, where heating uniformity is facilitated by both the controlled MW energy of Erp and the immersion effects of Tang, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Regarding claim 2, Erp teaches shifting the phase signal from one or more of the SS MW sources and controlling amplitude or frequency (paragraph 84), where the adjustment is performed at each MW source individually (paragraphs 11 and 85-86).
Regarding claim 3, Erp teaches multiple controllable generators as stated for claims 1-2, but does not teach a pair of generators arranged to applying energy from opposing sides of the packages.
Tang teaches a plurality of SS MW generators comprises at least one pair of SS MW generators which apply MW energy from opposing sides of the items via opposing applicators 510a-b and 512a-b (figures 2 and 9-11; paragraphs 99-100), where the configuration can be selected to facilitate heating uniformity, to achieve a desired heating effect for a particular foodstuff, and apply variations of modes or field configuration (paragraphs 101-102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Erp to use a pair of opposing MW generators since the prior art recognizes such a configuration, to similarly facilitate heating uniformity, achieve a desired heating effect for a particular foodstuff, and apply variations of modes or field configuration.
Regarding claim 4, Erp teaches computer controlling frequency, wavelength, phase, amplitude, direction of radiation, and magnitude of power of the MW energy in order to control heating within the food as stated for claim 1 (see also paragraphs 33 and 46). The apparatus can include multiple SS MW sources (paragraph 11) controlled individually or relative to each other (paragraph 17). The combination applied to claim 3 teaches a pair of SS MW generators to apply MW energy from opposing sides of the food. Therefore, the combination is construed to teach “setting a plane of maximum MW energy intensity between at least one pair of SS MW generators by computer changing…relative phase shift of an output MWS energy from the at least one pair of…generators.”
Regarding claim 5, Erp teaches the SS MW generators are arranged as an array of antennas i.e., transmitter elements (figures 1-3; paragraphs 68-69), and the phase of the signal from the generators can be shifted relative to each other i.e., phased array (paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 6, Erp teaches a phased array and controlling the signal phase of the generators relative to each other as stated for claim 5. The shifting allows for changing energy distribution to a targeted area and control (setting) of the direction of radiation (paragraph 11). The targeted energy distribution and direction of radiation would necessarily form a “MW energy main lobe direction from the phased array” in the targeted area/direction.
Regarding claim 7, Erp teaches pasteurization or sterilization as stated for claim 1, which one of ordinary skill would have understood to require maintaining the items at a holding temperature for a period of time sufficient to achieve said effects.
Regardless, Tang teaches maintaining the items at a holding temperature for a period of time sufficient to achieve sterilization or pasteurization of the items (paragraphs 65 and 67; claim 22).
Modification of Erp to maintain the temperature for a period of time would have been prima facie obvious to ensure the appropriate effect is achieved.
Regarding claims 8-9, Erp does not teach controlling the liquid in one or more zones to maintain one or more desired zone temperatures, the one or more zones including a holding zone and a holding temperature.
The combination applied to claim 1 teaches immersion as stated above.
Erp teaches multiple zones for different processes (paragraph 83).
Tang teaches controlling the immersion liquid in one or more zones to maintain one or more desired zone temperatures, including a holding zone and a cooling zone (figure 1; paragraphs 64-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Erp to maintain the liquid in a holding zone at a holding temperature for the same reasons stated for claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 10, Erp teaches a cooling chamber 18 (paragraph 72), the combination applied to claim 1 teaches liquid immersion, and the combination applied to claims 7-9 teaches maintaining a liquid temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Erp to maintain the liquid in the cooling zone at a temperature lower than the holding temperature for the same reasons stated for said claims, and in order to prevent the cooling zone temperature to increase excessively, thereby ensuring consistent cooling performance over time.
Regarding claim 21, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches the method recited for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 21 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
The difference between claims 1 and 21 is that the latter recites “two of the two or more SS MW generators are computer controllable” and “relative amplitude, relative frequency, and relative phase among the two or more SS MW generators”.
However, the combination applied to claims 3-4 renders obvious a pair of computer controlled SS MW generators as stated for said claims. The same combination is applied to claim 21 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, Erp teaches computer controlling is based at least in part on feedback from one or more sensors configured to actively monitor temperatures and/or heating patterns in the items as they are heated (paragraphs 19, 80, 84 and 100).
Regarding claim 23, the combination applied to claim 21 teaches a pair of computer controllable SS MW generators.
The combination applied to claims 3-4 teaches the generators are mutually arranged to apply MW energy from opposing sides of the items, where the computer controlling includes computer setting a plane of maximum MW energy intensity between the pair of generators by computer changing one or more of relative amplitude and phase shift. The same combination is applied to claim 23 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument for reconsideration and withdrawal of the restriction requirement, the restriction was made final in the previous Office Action. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn.
Regardless, amended claim 1 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed since the amendments now positively require a computer controller and associated computer controlling. Such features were not required by the method as originally presented. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Applicant’s arguments against the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 103 presented in the previous Office Action have been fully considered, but the amendments to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection. Tang is no longer relied upon to teach the argued computer controlling features. Ben-Shmuel et al. is no longer relied upon in the instant Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights