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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species 1A, corresponding to claims 1-6, 8 and 10 in the reply filed on April 7th, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 7, 9 and 11-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 1 discloses the limitation “wherein the one or more thermal insulation modules to maintain a temperature of…” Such a limitation is unclear. It is suggested to amend to “insulation modules configured to maintain…” or “insulation modules maintains…” Appropriate action is required.
Claims 2-6, 8 and 10 are rejected as well merely due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the tank" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 also recites the limitation “a liquid transmission means” in lines 13 to 14, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacroix (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0118310) in view of Alva (Publication No. IN 201921002694 A).
It is first noted that the Figures discussed in Alva (Publication No. IN 201921002694) are found in Patent Document No. 335463 registered to Alva; wherein Patent Document No. 335463 is the same application No. (Application No. IN 201921002694) in both Publication No. IN 201921002694 and Patent Document No. 335463 which are both registered to Alva. Thus, Patent Document No. 335463 and Publication No. IN 201921002694 are one in the same.
Concerning claims 1 & 10, Lacroix discloses a method for preserving an organic product in a process plant (Canadian Irradiation Centre), the method comprising:
Obtaining the poultry (concerning claim 10; paragraph 153) organic product, wherein the organic product is subjected to freezing at a predefined temperature (paragraph 153); and
Irradiating the organic product for a predefined time period (paragraph 153).
Lacroix does not appear to disclose that the method comprises the step of enclosing the product with an apparatus that is inbuilt with a thermal insulation module configured to maintain a temperature of the product at the predefined temperature during the predefined time period. Alva discloses a method for preserving an organic product in a process plant (paragraph 79) by obtaining the organic product (paragraph 7), enclosing the organic product within an apparatus (110), and irradiating the organic product for a predefined time period (paragraphs 14, 25 and 67; Figure 3). The reference continues to disclose that the method comprises the step of enclosing the product with an apparatus that is inbuilt with a thermal insulation module configured to maintain a temperature of the product at the predefined temperature during the predefined time period (paragraphs 65 and 83; Figures 2 & 3) in order to ensure the product remains at the predefined temperature throughout the irradiation process (paragraph 66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprise the step of enclosing the product with an apparatus that is inbuilt with a thermal insulation module configured to maintain a temperature of the product at the predefined temperature during the predefined time period in Lacroix in order to ensure the product remains at the predefined temperature throughout the irradiation process as exemplified by Alva.
Thus, claim 1 is not patentable over Lacroix in view of Alva.
Regarding claim 2, Lacroix continues to disclose sealing the organic product in one of a gas permeable bag or a high barrier bag, and freezing the organic product up to the predefined temperature, wherein the predefined temperature is based on the type and composition of the organic product, and wherein the predefined temperature is selectable from a range of -40 to -195 degree Celsius (paragraph 153).
Thus, claim 2 is unpatentable over Lacroix in view of Alva as well.
Concerning claim 6, Lacroix also discloses that the predefined temperature is selectable from a range of 0 to -195 degree Celsius, and wherein a concentration of radiation required for irradiating the organic product is selectable from a range of 0.3-5 kGy, based on a type of the organic product (paragraph 153). The reference does not appear to disclose the predefined time range however, but does disclose that the time period is a result effective variable (Figures 24-26). As such, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the predefined time period in the method of Lacroix to between 5 and 180 minutes in order to successfully decontaminate a given organic food product for a particular application; as such is considered a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill through routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claim 6 is not patentable over Lacroix in view of Alva as well.
With respect to claim 8, Lacroix also discloses storing the irradiated organic in a cooling device maintained at a third predefined temperature selectable from -15 to -105 degree Celsius (paragraphs 143, 153). Furthermore, based on the methods of irradiation at 0.3-30kGy and storage conditions at -80 degrees Celsius, and further that Lacroix discloses that the method is applicable on meats, poultry, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. (paragraph 47); it is respectfully submitted that Lacroix also meets the limitations of the organic product having a first shelf life up to 10 years when stored at the third predefined temperature, and wherein the first shelf life is based on a type of the organic product, and wherein the irradiated organic product retains the physiological, chemical, biological and structural properties of the organic product during the first shelf life (paragraphs 47, 143 and 153).
Thus, claim 8 is also not patentable over Lacroix in view of Alva.
Allowable Subject Matter
Should the Applicant overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections noted above, then claims 3-5 would be merely 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799