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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 20-22 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-6 and 21-22 are rejected. Claims 7-17 and 20 remain withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “filtering the condensed aerosol smoke through filtering material to filter out volatile organic compounds after step b);” should read “filtering the condensed aerosol smoke through filtering material to filter out volatile organic compounds to produce a filtered aerosol smoke after step b);”.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein said condensing reduces water in the smoke” should read “wherein said condensing reduces water in the aerosol smoke”.
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.
Claim 4 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, it is unclear when the addition of smoke flavor compounds to said aerosol smoke occurs (i.e., before step b), between steps b) and c), before or after step e), etc.). Consequently, claim 4 is rejected as indefinite.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Han (CN 210275725 U), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties).
Regarding claim 1, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0045-0046) methods for smoking food, comprising generating smoke, passing the smoke through a filter, to remove the one or more PAHs from the smoke, and into a chamber, and contacting filtered smoke with food in the chamber, wherein smoke is generated from a combustion material or fuel that can be combusted (heated) to yield smoke, wherein common materials used in the industry for generating smoke are: wood chips, wood dust, wood shavings, wood briquettes, logs, charcoal and charcoal briquettes, and, in operation of the invention, oak, hickory, cherry, apple and beech wood (organic material) are used successfully. Also, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0017) the treating of step may comprise contacting the smoke with a filter in gas phase. (The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s Specification states (Paragraph 0020) aerosol smoke is produced by heating organic material. Additionally, the plain meaning of “aerosol” (Merriam-webster.com) is a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas. Therefore, the gas phase smoke of Griffiths, produced by the heating of wood/organic material is understood to be aerosol smoke.) Additionally, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0049) condensing moisture (water/liquid) out of the treated smoke is preferred for foods that would be adversely affected by an increase in water content. Furthermore, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0037, 0080), the filter may selectively remove particular components, such as benzo(a)pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, two of these or all three, and the smoke produced or used in the methods contains reduced levels of PAH. Also, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0037) the smoke produced or used in the methods contains reduced levels of PAH while still imparting a smoky flavour (smoke aroma and flavor).
While Griffiths does not explicitly describe the aroma, aroma is understood to be a component of flavor. For example, Senopsys teaches (What is Flavor?) “flavor” refers to the combination of taste, aroma, mouthfeel and texture.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that retaining a smoky flavor would constitute retaining the smoke aroma as well. Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the food to have a traditional smoke aroma and flavor, since many consumers prefer the flavor and aroma of smoked foods, and since a food with less and flavor and aroma would be less noticeable (e.g. not detected by smell), and therefore less appealing to the consumer or profitable to the producer.
Griffiths is silent on the step of condensing the aerosol smoke also reducing solids. Griffiths is further silent on filtering the condensed aerosol smoke through filtering material to filter out volatile organic compounds after step b), thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds. Also, Griffiths does not explicitly state that preservative components are retained in the filtered aerosol smoke.
Schich teaches condensing the aerosol smoke to reduce solids. Specifically, Schich teaches (Claim 1) a method for smoking foodstuffs, in particular meat and fish products, in which the smoke is cooled and then fed into a smoking chamber, characterized in that foreign substances and solids are removed and discharged from the smoke during cooling by means of condensation, and that only the purified smoke is fed into the smoking chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths to also reduce solids during condensing as taught by Schich since each is directed to a method of smoking a food product, since condensing smoke to reduce solids is known in the art as shown by Schich, since condensing smoke to reduce solids allows foodstuffs with excellent taste properties and without harmful components to be produced (Schich, Paragraph 0004), since foreign substances such as carbon components, suspended solids, tar and resins are removed from the smoke before it is fed into the smoking chamber (Schich, Paragraph 0006), where such solids can adversely affect the taste, texture, and nutritional value of the food product, or can adversely affect the appearance of the food product, making it undesirable to consumers, and since aromatic substances contained in the flue gas (smoke) are not separated during flue gas cleaning by condensation separation so smoked foods are not affected by harmful substances but only by the aromatic substances contained in the smoke, and smoked foods are of excellent taste quality (Schich, Paragraph 0006-0007).
Han teaches filtering aerosol smoke through filtering material to filter out volatile organic compounds thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds. Specifically, Han teaches (Paragraph 0009, 0010) a method of treating smoke before smoking food, thereby reducing the harmful effects of the smoke on the food, wherein smoke conveyed from a smoke generator to a smoke chamber passes through a treatment device including first and second filters. Han further teaches (Paragraph 0020, 0022) the second filter element is an activated carbon (filtering material) filter screen that can remove volatile organic compounds and also remove odors and off-odors from flue gas to a certain extent (i.e., not complete removal; some of the smoke aroma remains). Additionally, Han teaches (Paragraph 0048) as shown by Figures 1 and 2, smoke passes through activated carbon filter 42 directly prior to entering smoke chamber 1 for contacting food.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths to filter the condensed aerosol smoke through filtering material to filter out volatile organic compounds thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds in view of Han, since both Griffiths and Han are directed to methods of filtering aerosol smoke prior to smoking food products, since filtering aerosol smoke through filtering material to filter out volatile organic compounds thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds is known in the art as shown by Han, since filtering volatile organic compounds with an activated carbon filter can improve the quality of the smoke and reduce the harm of smoked food, thus improving the safety and quality of smoked food (Han, Paragraph 0021), and since untreated smoke contains particulate matter and other impurities that will have an adverse effect on the smoked food and endanger the health of the user (Han, Paragraph 0007).
Horner teaches (Paragraph 0038, 0043-0044, 0050, 0070) a method of operating smoke evacuation systems associated with hand-held instruments that produce smoke or cause smoke to be produced during use, wherein a fluid trap is provided to condense liquid vapor in the smoke and reduce the amount of fluid entering the filter or other components of smoke evacuation devices, wherein the fluid collected in the fluid trap may be water. Horner further teaches (Paragraph 0090) the filter comprises a carbon reservoir where gaseous contaminants such as volatile organic compounds are removed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths, as modified above, to filter the volatile organic compounds in the aerosol smoke after condensing the aerosol smoke as taught by Horner since both are directed to methods for treating smoke, since filtering the volatile organic compounds in aerosol smoke after condensing the aerosol smoke is known in the art shown by Horner, since, by reducing the total fluid content of the smoke and removing bulk liquid from the smoke, the usable life of mechanically coupled filters can be increased (Horner, Paragraph 0044), since the reduced fluid content within the smoke can protect the electrical components within or associated with the smoke evacuation device (Horner, Paragraph 0044), and since contacting the smoke with food immediately after filtering VOCs (i.e., all other smoke processing steps occur prior to filtering the VOCs) is known and obvious as shown above with regard to Han.
Also, Toledo teaches (Page 59) the antimicrobial properties of smoke are well known and constitutes the primary role of smoke in food preservation, wherein all the constituents of smoke interact to bring about the antimicrobial effect, and phenolics, acetic acid, and carbonyls individually have antimicrobial activity but their combined effect is synergistic.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, that so long as at least some components of the smoke remain (and Griffiths and Han only require reduction, not total elimination of individual components), the smoke would necessarily retain preservative components. Furthermore, retaining preservative components would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the shelf-life of smoked food and prevent the growth of harmful microorganisms.
Regarding claim 2, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0045) smoke is generated from a combustion material or fuel that can be combusted to yield smoke, wherein common materials used in the industry for generating smoke are: wood chips, wood dust, wood shavings, wood briquettes, logs, charcoal and charcoal briquettes, and, in operation of the invention, oak, hickory, cherry, apple and beech wood (hardwood) are used successfully, and therefore Griffiths discloses the claim limitation of “hardwood for smoke flavoring food”.
Regarding claim 3, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0049) condensing moisture (water/liquid) out of the treated smoke is preferred for foods that would be adversely affected by an increase in water content.
Also, as stated above with regard to claim 1, Horner teaches (Paragraph 0050) that the fluid condensed in the smoke evacuation device may be water, where a step of condensing aerosol smoke to reduce liquid water before filtering VOCs would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Han (CN 210275725 U), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties), and further in view of Shakhov (RU 2642469 C1).
Regarding claim 4, Griffiths, as modified above, is silent on smoke flavor compounds being added to said aerosol smoke.
Shakhov teaches (Paragraph 0008, Claim 1) producing smoked meat products with an internal feed of a combined smoking mixture into the product under pressure, wherein vapors of spicy-smoking flavorings (smoke flavor compounds) are mixed with a smoke-air mixture to produce a combined mixture which is fed to the product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths, as modified above, to add smoke flavor compounds to the aerosol smoke as taught by Shakhov since both are directed to smoking food products with aerosol smoke, since adding smoke flavor compounds to aerosol smoke is known in the art as shown by Shakhov, since additional flavoring can improve the taste, aroma, and flavor of the smoke and the smoked food product to satisfy consumers and make the food more appealing, since adding the smoke flavor compounds to the smoke allows the flavor compounds to be carried by the smoke to contact the food without the need for direct application, and since some consumers will prefer smoked food products with more noticeable or stronger flavors.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Han (CN 210275725 U), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties), and further in view of Grandt (EP 0887019 A2).
Regarding claim 5, Griffiths, as modified above, is silent on smoke flavor compounds being added to said food.
Grandt teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0014) treating food with liquid smoke (smoke flavor compounds) and then with gaseous friction smoke, wherein the liquid smoke is sprayed onto the food in atomized form.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths, as modified above, to add smoke flavor compounds to the food as taught by Grandt since both are directed to smoking food products with aerosol smoke, since adding smoke flavor compounds to food is known in the art as shown by Grandt, since additional flavoring can improve the taste, aroma, and flavor of the smoked food product to satisfy consumers and make the food more appealing, since adding the smoke flavor compounds directly to the food ensures the desired amount of smoke flavor compounds are added to the food product, since some consumers will prefer smoked food products with more noticeable or stronger flavors, and since an initial smoking phase with liquid smoke (smoke flavor compounds) increases the relative humidity in the treatment chamber, which means that during the subsequent treatment with friction smoke, the smoke is absorbed much better by the food product, thus significantly improving the transfer of substances to the food product, resulting in shorter smoking times and thus an increased potential product throughput (Grandt, Paragraph 0011).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Han (CN 210275725 U), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties), and further in view of Zhu et al. (A critical review on VOCs adsorption. . .).
Regarding claim 6, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0021) suitable filters remove for removing PAHs from the smoke have a pore size of approximately 10 Angstroms (1 nm) or smaller, or approximately 7 Angstroms (0.7 nm) or smaller or approximately 6 Angstroms (0.6 nm) or smaller (microporous) can provide this filtering.
Griffiths is silent on removing volatile organic compounds with a microporous material.
As shown above, Han teaches (Paragraph 0009, 0010) a method of treating smoke before smoking food, thereby reducing the harmful effects of the smoke on the food, wherein smoke conveyed from a smoke generator to a smoke chamber passes through a treatment device including first and second filters. Han further teaches (Paragraph 0020, 0022) the second filter element is an activated carbon (filtering material) filter screen that can remove volatile organic compounds and also remove odors and off-odors from flue gas to a certain extent (i.e., not complete removal; some of the smoke aroma remains).
Furthermore, Zhu et al. teaches (Section 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.2.4) microporous materials including activated carbon fiber, clay, and silica gel can be successfully used to adsorb volatile organic compounds.
Therefore, as shown above, removal of gas compounds from smoke for food treatment with microporous materials is known from Griffiths, removal of VOCs from smoke for food treatment with activated carbon is known from Han (and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1), and remove of VOCs with microporous material including activated carbon is known in the art from Zhu et al.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths as modified above to provide microporous material as a component for removing or lowering volatile organic compounds (VOCs), since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2144.07), and microporous materials including are activated carbon fiber, clay, and silica gel are a known component for removal of volatile organic compounds as demonstrated above by Zhu et al., since filtering volatile organic compounds with an activated carbon filter can improve the quality of the smoke and reduce the harm of smoked food, thus improving the safety and quality of smoked food (Han, Paragraph 0021), and since VOCs pose serious harms to both the ecological environment and human health, with most VOCs being malodorous, toxic and carcinogenic to human health even at low concentration, leading to respiratory inhalation and skin mucosa and damage of nervous and blood systems (Zhu, Introduction, Page 3).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Han (CN 210275725 U), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties), and further in view of Zhu et al. (A critical review on VOCs adsorption. . .) and Plunkett (US 20060207620 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Griffiths is silent on step c) reducing a concentration of propylene C3H6, also known as propene or methyl ethylene, in the condensed aerosol smoke.
As shown above with regard to claim 1, Han teaches filtering aerosol smoke through filtering material to filter out volatile organic compounds thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds. Specifically, Han teaches (Paragraph 0020, 0022) using an activated carbon (filtering material) filter screen that can remove volatile organic compounds.
While Han does not explicitly state that propylene is one of the volatile organic compounds removed by the activated carbon filter, it is known in the art that an activated carbon filter can remove propylene from smoke.
For example from Plunkett teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0029, 0051) filters, smoking articles and methods for treating mainstream tobacco smoke, wherein a cigarette filter comprises activated carbon fibers that can remove constituents including propylene from the smoke.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths, as modified above, to reduce a concentration of propylene in the condensed aerosol smoke in view of Han and Plunkett since removal of volatile organic compounds (where propylene is a known volatile organic compound) with an activated carbon filter is known in the art from Han, since using an activated carbon filter to remove propylene from smoke is known from Plunkett, since filtering volatile organic compounds with an activated carbon filter can improve the quality of the smoke and reduce the harm of smoked food, thus improving the safety and quality of smoked food (Han, Paragraph 0021), and since VOCs pose serious harms to both the ecological environment and human health, with most VOCs being malodorous, toxic and carcinogenic to human health even at low concentration, leading to respiratory inhalation and skin mucosa and damage of nervous and blood systems and, some VOCs such as propylene being flammable and explosive (Zhu, Introduction, Page 3), and thus reduction of propylene, which is a volatile organic compound, would be obvious.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Han (CN 210275725 U), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties), and further in view of Zhu et al. (A critical review on VOCs adsorption. . .) and Mishra (US 20170295842 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Griffiths is silent on step c) reducing a concentration of 1,3-butadiene C4H6 in the condensed aerosol smoke.
As shown above with regard to claim 1, Han teaches filtering aerosol smoke through filtering material to filter out volatile organic compounds thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds. Specifically, Han teaches (Paragraph 0020, 0022) using an activated carbon (filtering material) filter screen that can remove volatile organic compounds.
While Han does not explicitly state that 1,3-butadiene is one of the volatile organic compounds removed by the activated carbon filter, it is known in the art that an activated carbon filter can remove 1,3-butadiene from smoke.
For example from Mishra teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0038, 0046) smoking articles, such as cigarettes and filters for use with cigarettes, wherein microporous materials such as an activated carbon can be used to filter out gas constituents from cigarette smoke, including removing volatile organic components, such as 1,3-butadiene.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths, as modified above, to reduce a concentration of 1,3-butadiene in the condensed aerosol smoke in view of Han and Mishra since removal of volatile organic compounds (where 1,3-butadiene is a known volatile organic compound) with an activated carbon filter is known in the art from Han, since using an activated carbon filter to remove 1,3-butadiene from smoke is known from Plunkett, since filtering volatile organic compounds with an activated carbon filter can improve the quality of the smoke and reduce the harm of smoked food, thus improving the safety and quality of smoked food (Han, Paragraph 0021), and since VOCs pose serious harms to both the ecological environment and human health, with most VOCs being malodorous, toxic and carcinogenic to human health even at low concentration, leading to respiratory inhalation and skin mucosa and damage of nervous and blood systems (Zhu, Introduction, Page 3), and thus reduction of 1,3-butadiene, which is a volatile organic compound, would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s argument against the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1, that Griffiths addresses a different chemical target and a different problem since Griffiths is directed to reducing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, the Examiner notes that, while Griffiths is silent on the reduction of VOCs, both Griffiths and the claimed invention are directed to methods of smoking food products comprising exposing food to filtered aerosol smoke, thus making Griffiths pertinent to the problem with which the Applicant is concerned, of treating food products with filtered smoke. Moreover, modifying Griffiths to reduce the VOCs by filtering with a filtering material would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reason stated above with regard to claim 1.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Schich does not address the central problem of the present application, namely, reducing VOCs after condensation, the Examiner notes that Schich is relied upon to teach reduction of solids by condensing aerosol smoke. A secondary reference need not teach every feature of the claimed invention as the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the reduction of VOCs is obvious in view of Han for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments against Karau and Riddervold, the Examiner notes that Karau and Riddervold are no longer relied upon in the rejection, and, therefore, the arguments have been rendered moot.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Horner is non-analogous art since Horner is not from the same field of endeavor and Horner is not reasonable pertinent to the Applicant’s problem because the problem addressed by Applicant is smoking seafood or meat while reducing or removing compounds from the smoke that impart objectionable flavors while in Horner, the smoke is an unwanted side effect of the surgical procedure and is discarded, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the claimed process is directed to smoking food in general, not meat or seafood specifically, and the removal of compounds that impart “objectionable flavors” is not a claimed feature. Moreover, the Examiner maintains that Horner is pertinent to the problem of smoking food with smoke that has been subjected to condensing to remove liquids and solids and filtering to remove VOCs, since Horner is also directed treatment of smoke by condensing to remove liquids and filtering to remove VOCs. The smoke need not be produced or used in the exact same manner as the Applicant’s invention for the treatment process of Horner to be pertinent to the problem with which the Applicant is concerned.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Toledo does not provide any particular suggestion regarding the filtering of VOCs from smoke used to cure foods, and it therefore represents little more than background smoke chemistry unrelated to the specific problem at hand, the Examiner notes that Toledo is relied upon to demonstrate that the treated smoke would necessarily retain preservative components. A secondary reference need not teach every feature of the claimed invention as the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the reduction of VOCs is obvious in view of Han for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that there is nothing in the cited prior art combination that suggests an aerosol smoke is first condensed to reduce liquids and solids; and the reduction of water in the condensing step improves the subsequent filtering, which would otherwise be negatively impacted by the occupation of filter pore sites by the water, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, as shown above, Horner teaches condensing water prior to filtering VOCs, and doing so would be obvious for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1, since reducing the total fluid content of the smoke and removing bulk liquid from the smoke, the usable life of mechanically coupled filters can be increased (Horner, Paragraph 0044), since the reduced fluid content within the smoke can protect the electrical components within or associated with the smoke evacuation device (Horner, Paragraph 0044), and since contacting the smoke with food immediately after filtering VOCs (i.e., all other smoke processing steps occur prior to filtering the VOCs) is known and obvious as shown above with regard to Han
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that there is nothing in the other cited references that would suggest a need to modify Griffiths, the Examiner notes that Griffiths is directed to treating food with smoke, and filtering volatile organic compounds with an activated carbon filter can improve the quality of the smoke and reduce the harm of smoked food, thus improving the safety and quality of smoked food (Han, Paragraph 0021), and VOCs pose serious harms to both the ecological environment and human health, with most VOCs being malodorous, toxic and carcinogenic to human health even at low concentration, leading to respiratory inhalation and skin mucosa and damage of nervous and blood systems (Zhu, Introduction, Page 3),
The Applicant also argues that claims 2-6 should be allowable as a result of depending upon claim 1. However, as shown above, claim 1 remains rejected under 35 USC 103. Consequently, claims 1-6 and 21-22 remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Garces (US 20200054032 A1) teaches an indoor smoker which includes a catalytic converter which is positioned within an exhaust duct for lowering or removing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the flow of smoke.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights