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 without traverse of Group III, claims 12-25, drawn to an apparatus in the reply filed on 09/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 80’ in Figs. 10 and 12.
The drawings are additionally objected to because there is a missed translation from Italian to English in Fig. 8. Specifically, the y-axis of the figure reads “Massa (g)” and should be corrected to --Mass (g)--.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“121 e 122” should be corrected to --121 and 122-- [PG Pub: 0077].
The forming device material is given the reference number 10 [PG Pub: 0141, 0143], which is the reference number of the forming device. The material should either be given its own unique reference number, or the reference number should be omitted, as the material is not specifically called out in any figure of the drawings.
“forming device 1” should be corrected to --forming device 10-- [PG Pub: 0143].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 14-16, 20-22, and 24 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 12, 14, 15, 21, 22, and 24, “the ingredient” should be corrected to --the at least one ingredient-- .
Regarding claim 16, “the dose amount” should be corrected to --the dosed amount--.
Regarding claim 20, “a respective forming cavity” should be corrected to --the respective forming cavity--. Additionally, “the least one fluidic circuit” should be corrected to --the at least one fluidic circuit--.
Regarding claim 22, “a respective forming cavity” should be corrected to --the respective forming cavity--.
Regarding claim 24, “paits” should be corrected to --parts--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
The loading subsystem, which will be interpreted as a loading station comprising a tank filled with precursor material and a plurality of nozzles that align with the plurality of forming cavities of the forming device, as described in the specification [PG Pub: 0091-0093].
The moistening subsystem, which will be interpreted as a hydraulic circuit comprising moistening passages in fluid communication with the forming cavities to deliver fluid to the precursor, as described in the specification [PG Pub: 0076]. It should be noted that the moistening subsystem will not be interpreted under 112(f) in claim 20, as it is stated that the moistening subsystem comprises a fluidic circuit with connecting ducts and respective inlets related to moistening passages.
The heating device, which will be interpreted as a microwave, radio frequency, or infrared oven, as described in the specification [PG Pub: 0101, 0141, 0143]. It should be noted that the heating device will not be interpreted under 112(f) for claims 16 and 17 where it is provided the structure of electromagnetic wave sources for irradiation and a microwave oven, respectively. Although the heating device is provided structure in claims 15 and 22 in the form of a treatment cavity or chamber, these elements are not key to the function of heating the ingredient and so these claims will still interpret the heating device under 112(f).
The handling or transport subsystem, which will be interpreted as a conveyor device, as described in the specification [PG Pub: 0087-0088].
The pressing subsystem, which will be interpreted as a pneumatic pressing device, as described in the specification [PG Pub: 0094].
The drying subsystem, which will be interpreted as a desiccating or cooling tunnel, as described in the specification [PG Pub: 0124].
The desiccation subsystem, which will be interpreted as a desiccating or cooling tunnel, as described in the specification [PG Pub: 0124].
The cooling subsystem, which will be interpreted as a desiccating or cooling tunnel, as described in the specification [PG Pub: 0124].
The packaging subsystem, which will be interpreted as vacuum type, modified atmosphere packaging type, or protected atmosphere type under inert gas [PG Pub: 0126].
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 15-20, 22, 24, and 25 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 15, the limitation “all dosed amounts” lack sufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear if this is referring to the dosed amount in claim 12, which is singular, or the plurality of dosed amounts in claim 14. This can be can be corrected to and will be interpreted as --each of the plurality of dosed amounts--.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the dosed amount, each dosed amount” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. If claim 16 is only meant to be dependent on claim 12, as it is currently written, “the dosed amount, or each dosed amount” should be corrected to --the dosed amount--. If claim 16 is intended to be dependent on claim 14, claim 16 should be amended to reflect this, and “the dosed amount, or each dosed amount” should be corrected to --the dosed amount, or each of the plurality of dosed amounts--. It should be noted that an informality pointed out above has stated that “dose” should be corrected to --dosed-- in this claim, and the suggested correction in this rejection statement reflects this.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In this case, it is unclear whether the multimode treatment cavity or chamber are intended to be included in the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear if “the at least one forming cavity” includes or is separate from “the respective forming cavity” introduced in claim 12. If these are considered two separate cavities, applicant should clarify using appropriate language. If claim 18 is intended to state that there can be more than one respective forming cavity which was introduced in claim 12, “the at least one forming cavity” should be corrected to --the at least one forming cavity, including the respective forming cavity--.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the forming cavity, or each forming cavity” lack sufficient antecedent basis. If claim 19 is meant to only be dependent on claim 12, as it is currently written, “the forming cavity, or each forming cavity” should be corrected to –the respective forming cavity--. If claim 19 is intended to be dependent on claim 18, claim 19 should be amended to reflect this, and “the forming cavity, or each forming cavity” should be corrected to --the respective forming cavity, or each of the at least one forming cavity--.
Regarding claim 20, the 112(b) rejection above for claim 19 stands for claim 20, regarding the limitation “the forming cavity, or each forming cavity” pertaining to lack of sufficient antecedent basis.
Further, the limitation “the fluidic circuit” and “the at least one fluidic circuit” lack sufficient antecedent basis. If claim 20 is intended to only depend on claim 18, as it is currently written, “the fluidic circuit” should be corrected to --a fluidic circuit-- and “the at least one fluidic circuit” should be corrected to --the fluidic circuit--. If claim 20 was intended to be dependent on claim 19, claim 20 should be amended to reflect this, and “the fluidic circuit” should be corrected to --the at least one fluidic circuit--. It should be noted that an objection has been made to this claim to correct “the least one fluidic circuit” to --the at least one fluidic circuit-- and this has been reflected in this rejection and suggested correction.
Claim 20 will also be rejected under 112(b) by virtue of its dependence on claim 18.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “the microwave oven” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. If claim 22 is intended to only be dependent on claim 12, as it is currently written, “the microwave oven” can be corrected to --the heating device--. If claim 22 was intended to be dependent on claim 17 where the microwave oven is provided antecedent basis, claim 22 should be amended to reflect this, and “the microwave oven” can remain written as it is.
Further, the 112(b) rejection above for claim 16 stands for claim 22, regarding the limitation “the dosed amount, or each dosed amount” pertaining to lack of sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 24, the 112(b) rejection above for claim 16 stands for claim 22, regarding the limitation “the dosed amount, or each dosed amount” pertaining to lack of sufficient antecedent basis.
Further, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While it is understood that a tunnel-shape includes one entrance and one exit, extending lengthwise in between (per specification), the term “substantially” renders the limitation indefinite. It is not clear to what extent a microwave oven may be considered “substantially” tunnel-shaped.
Regarding claim 25, this claim will be rejected under 112(b) by virtue of its dependence on claim 24.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 12, and 13 of Carbonini (U.S. Patent Application No. 18/025,605, PG Pub No. US 2023/0345959 A1). U.S. Patent Application No. 18.025,605 was co-pending the instant application until it was given a notice of allowance mailed on 4/14/2026. It will be referred to as the co-pending application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
The table below shows identical text as underlined, and similar text as italicized. Limitations of claim 11 of the co-pending application have been re-ordered to show matching limitations to the instant application.
Instant 18/025,612
Co-Pending 18/025,605
Claim 12: A system for producing tablets for extraction of a liquid food product, starting from at least one ingredient in granular or powder form, the system being designed for subjecting a dosed and moistened amount of the ingredient which is contained in a confined volume to heating, the system comprising at least:
- a forming subsystem, configured to confer a predefined shape to each tablet;
- a loading subsystem, configured to supply the ingredient in a dosed amount, into a respective forming cavity of a forming device of the forming subsystem;
- a moistening subsystem, configured to moisten at least part of the ingredient;
- a heating subsystem, comprising a heating device configured to heat the ingredient while contained in the respective forming cavity of the forming device of the forming subsystem;
- a handling or transport subsystem, configured to cause displacements of the forming device of the forming sub-system,
wherein the moistening subsystem and the forming subsystem are prearranged for obtaining a moistening of the ingredient in the respective forming cavity of the forming device.
Claim 11: A system for producing tablets for extraction of a liquid food product starting from at least one ingredient in granular or powder form, the system being designed for irradiating with microwaves a dosed and moistened amount of the ingredient which is contained in a confined volume, the system comprising at least:
- a forming sub-system, configured to confer the tablets a predefined shape;
- a loading sub-system, configured to supply the at least one ingredient, in a dosed amount, into a respective forming cavity of the forming sub-system;
- a moistening sub-system, configured to moisten at least part of the at least one ingredient;
- a heating sub-system, configured to irradiate with microwaves the at least one ingredient while contained in the respective forming cavity of the forming sub-system;
[Later in claim 11] wherein the heating sub-system comprises a microwave oven, having a multimode cavity configured to receive therein the body of the multi-cavity forming device;
- a transport sub-system;
wherein the forming sub-system includes a multi-cavity forming device, the transport sub-system being configured to cause displacements of the multi-cavity forming device,
Claim 12: The system according to Claim 11, wherein the moistening sub-system and the forming sub-system are configured to obtain moistening of the at least one ingredient within the respective forming cavity of the body of the multi-cavity forming device.
Claim 13: The system according to Claim 12, wherein the moistening subsystem and the forming subsystem are prearranged for obtaining a moistening of only a surface layer of the dosed amount.
Claim 13: The system according to Claim 12, wherein the moistening sub-system and the forming sub-system are configured to obtain moistening of only a surface layer of each dosed amount.
With regard to differences between the instant and co-pending applications beyond merely linguistic choices, the following is presented:
The co-pending application recites “irradiating [the dosed ingredient] with microwaves” while the instant application recites “subjecting [the dosed ingredient] to heating” in the preamble. Irradiating with microwaves is a type of heating.
Regarding instances of the instant application reciting “the ingredient” while the co-pending application recites “the at least one ingredient” an objection has been made to the instant application discussed in this office action regarding the use of “the ingredient” without sufficient antecedent basis, and correction to “the at least one ingredient” has been suggested.
The heating subsystem of the instant application comprises a heating device, while the heating subsystem of the co-pending application comprises a microwave oven. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “heating device” as discussed in this office action under the 112(f) claim interpretation includes a microwave oven.
The forming device of the co-pending application is a multicavity forming device, which is a species of the generic invention of a forming device, claimed in the instant application. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Fig. 1 disclosed by Liu, modified to show each subsystem.
Claims 12-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 204907723 U) in view of Harris (US 2003/0209542 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses a system for producing tablets (“tablet production apparatus” [0011]; see Annotated Figure 1) for extraction of a liquid food product, starting from at least one ingredient in granular or powder form (“pressing the powder into tablets” [0011]), the system being designed for subjecting a dosed and moistened amount of the ingredient (“feeding mechanism delivers powder from the storage tank” and “spraying pipe sprays the tablets” [0016]) which is contained in a confined volume to heating (“transports to mold body to the drying mechanism” wherein the drying mechanism is a drying oven, configured with heating wires [0015, 0016]), the system comprising at least:
- a forming subsystem (tableting mechanism 2, spraying tank 31, mold station 51, mold body 52, tableting grooves 53, lifting device 21, pressure plate 22, and pressing rods 23 [0024, Fig. 1]; see Annotated Figure 1), configured to confer a predefined shape to each tablet (the powder is deposited into the tableting grooves 53 which are pressed down upon by the pressure plate 22 with pressing rods 23 to confer a shape of the tablets within the grooves 53 “to press the powder into a sheet” [0024]);
- a loading subsystem (feeding mechanism 1, storage tank 11, feeding pipes 12, and control valve 13 [0024, 0025, Fig. 1]; see Annotated Figure 1), configured to supply the ingredient in a dosed amount, into a respective forming cavity of a forming device of the forming subsystem (“feeding mechanism 1 feeds the powder through the storage tank 11 to the tableting groove 53” [0024]; “invention provides a control valve 13 on the feeding pipe 12 to control the amount of feed” [0025]);
PNG
media_image2.png
435
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. Fig. 1 disclosed by Liu, modified to show components of the moistening subsystem and positioning of the forming device with respect to moistening subsystem.
- a moistening subsystem (spraying pipe 32, and spray holes 33 [0024, 0027, Fig. 1]; see Annotated Figure 1), configured to moisten at least part of the ingredient (“spraying pipe 32 sprays the sheet” [0024]);
- a handling or transport subsystem (conveyor belt 5 [0023, Fig. 1]; see Annotated Figure 1), configured to cause displacements of the forming device of the forming sub-system (“the conveyor belt 5 conveys the mold body 52” [0024]).
wherein the moistening subsystem and the forming subsystem are prearranged for obtaining a moistening of the ingredient in the respective forming cavity of the forming device (“the conveyor belt 5 conveys the mold body 52 to the spraying mechanism 3. The spraying pipe 32 sprays the sheet [of tableted powder]” [0024]; it can be seen in Fig. 1 that the mold body 52 is moved along the conveyor belt and is underneath the spraying mechanism 3, such that each forming cavity (grooves 53) is in fluid communication with a respective spraying pipe 32; see Annotated Figure 2).
Liu discloses a heating subsystem (drying mechanism 4, drying oven 41, electric heating wire 42, and temperature controller 43 [0023, 0028, Fig. 1]; see Annotated Figure 1), comprising a drying oven (drying oven 41 [0028]) configured to heat the ingredient (“The drying temperature can be adjusted” [0028]) while contained in the respective forming cavity of the forming device of the forming subsystem (“conveyor belt 5 then conveys the mold body 52 to the drying mechanism 4 for drying” [0024]).
Liu does not expressly disclose a heating device interpreted as a microwave, radio frequency, or infrared oven, as provided in the 112(f) interpretation of this limitation.
Harris teaches a microwave apparatus (“Apparatus And Method For Microwave Processing Of Food Products” [title]; heating machinery 14 [0029, Figs. 2, 5, and 6] is disclosed to include a heating chamber 34 which utilizes microwave sources 38 [0030, Figs. 2, 5, and 6]) comprising a transport subsystem (continuous belt 22, which is a conveyor belt [0029, Fig. 2]) to convey food products through the microwave oven to apply heat to the food products for the purpose of “cooking, warming, blanching, or dehydrating” [0029]. While Harris does not expressly disclose food products that are contained within molds being transported across the transport subsystem, the size of both the food product and continuous belt can be adjusted within the system (“the food product 12 could be of any type of food, any piece size, and the conveyor belt could be a number of different widths“ [0029]). Thus, the disclosed microwave oven is accommodating to various sizes of transport subsystems.
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Liu teaches a heating device that differs from the claimed heating device, as it is a drying oven with heating wires, while the claimed heating device, as provided by the 112(f) interpretation, is a microwave, radiofrequency, or infrared oven. The drying oven disclosed by Liu and the microwave oven disclosed by Harris both perform the function of heating a food product on a production line, and particularly, using the heat to dehydrate the food. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the microwave oven disclosed by Harris for the drying oven disclosed by Liu. Because Harris discloses that the microwave oven is configured to work in conjunction with a transport system that is a conveyor belt which is similar to the transport subsystem disclosed by Liu, substitution of the microwave oven of Harris for the drying oven of Liu would be simple to incorporate into the transport system of Liu. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have achieved predictable results with this substitution because both references deal with heating food products that are moving along a conveyor belt for production.
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses that the moistening subsystem and the forming subsystem are prearranged for obtaining a moistening of only a surface layer of the dosed amount (the spray pipe 32 and spray holes 33 are positioned above the grooves 53 such that only the top of the powder will be moistened [Fig. 1]; see Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
425
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3. Fig. 1 disclosed by Liu, modified to show loading subsystem components, namely feeding pipes, configured for simultaneous loading of powder into the multiple forming cavities.
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses that the forming device is a multi-cavity forming device (mold body 52 has “several tableting grooves 53” [0024]) and the loading subsystem is prearranged for loading a plurality of dosed amounts of the ingredient into respective forming cavities of the multi-cavity forming device (the storage tank has “several feeding pipes” [0011] and “delivers powder from the storage tank to the tableting groove” [0016]; see Annotated Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Harris discloses that the heating device (Harris: heating machinery 14 [0029, Figs. 2, 5, and 6]) has a treatment cavity or chamber (Harris: heating chamber 34 [0030, Fig. 6]) into which the multi-cavity forming device is introduced and extracted by means of the handling or transport subsystem (Liu: “conveyor belt 5 then conveys the mold body 52 to the drying mechanism 4” and “conveyor belt 5 preferably conveys the mold body 52 out for packaging” after the drying step [0024]; the microwave (heating machinery 14 [0029]) disclosed by Harris is substituted for the drying mechanism 4 (Liu) and is configured to continuously heat all food products that pass through on the transport subsystem (conveyor belt 5 [Liu: 0024]), as described above with regard to claim 12), the treatment cavity or chamber being prearranged in such a way that all dosed amounts of the ingredient in the respective forming cavities of the multi-cavity forming device are heated in the treatment cavity or chamber (the conveyor belt 5 [Liu: 0024] is configured to pass through the drying oven 4 [Liu: 0024], which has been substituted with the heating machinery 14 disclosed by Harris, including the heating chamber 34 [Harris: 0029, 0030, Figs. 2, 5, and 6]).
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Harris discloses that the heating device (Harris: heating machinery 14 [0029, Figs. 2, 5, and 6]) comprises one or more sources of electromagnetic waves (Harris: microwave sources 38 [0030, Fig. 2]) configured to irradiate the dose amount, or each dosed amount, contained in the respective forming cavity (Harris: “heat is applied from a heat source 38” and “heat energy heats the food product 12” wherein the heat source 38 is disclosed to be microwave sources [0030]; in substituting the microwave disclosed by Harris for the drying oven disclosed by Liu, conveyor belt 5 [Liu: 0024] containing the forming device (mold body 52 [Liu: 0024]), will pass through the heating machinery 14 [Harris: 0029]) and the forming device is at least partially made of a material transparent to said electromagnetic waves (though the material of mold body 52 (Liu) is not disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the mold must be made of material transparent to microwaves when passing through a microwave oven).
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Harris (citations directed to Harris unless otherwise noted) discloses that the heating device is a microwave oven (heating machinery 14 [0029, Figs. 2, 5, and 6] is disclosed to include a heating chamber 34 which utilizes microwave sources 38 [0030, Figs. 2, 5, and 6]), in particular having a multimode treatment cavity or chamber (heating chamber 34 is subjected to microwaves originating from the microwave sources 38 [0030]; mode converter 46 converts the microwave energy from rectangular to circular, and it is disclosed that “other modes of microwave energy are possible for use by this system” [0038, Figs. 5 and 6]).
PNG
media_image4.png
489
757
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4. Fig. 1 disclosed by Liu, modified to show components of the multicavity forming device, including first part and second part (with bottom and head parts).
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses that the forming device comprises a first part (mold body 52 [0024, Fig. 1]), in which there is at least partially defined at least one forming cavity (tableting grooves 53 [0024, Fig. 1]), and at least one second part (mold station 51 and pressing plate 22 with pressing rods 23 [0024, Fig. 1]) is couplable in a releasable way to the first part (“pressing rod 23 corresponds to the tableting groove 53” [0024]), to close the at least one forming cavity at at least one axial end thereof, where preferably the at least one second part comprises a bottom part (mold station 51 [0024, Fig. 1]) and a head part (pressing plate 22 [0024, Fig. 1]) between which the first part is set (mold station 51 is part of the conveyor belt upon which mold body 52 resides, while pressing plate 22 presses onto the top of mold body 52 [0024, Fig. 1]; see Annotated Figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Liu discloses that the forming device has at least one fluidic circuit (spraying tank 31 is fluidly connected to spraying pipes 32 and spray holes 33 [0024, 0027]) for conveying a moistening fluid into the forming cavity or each forming cavity (each forming cavity (grooves 53) is in fluid communication with a respective spraying pipe 32 when the tablets are sprayed; see Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 21, Liu discloses that the loading subsystem is configured to simultaneously supply the plurality of dosed amounts of the ingredient into a plurality of forming cavities of the multi-cavity forming device (the feeding mechanism 1 has several feeding pipes 12 positioned above the plurality of grooves 53 [0024, Fig. 1]; it also utilizes “a control valve 13 on the feeding pipe 12 to control the amount of feed, so that the amount of feed is uniform” [0025]; see Annotated Figure 3).
Regarding claim 22, Liu in view of Harris (references cited to Liu unless otherwise noted) discloses that the system is further comprising at least one pressing subsystem (the forming subsystem includes a pressing subsystem that includes mold station 51, mold body 52, tableting grooves 53, lifting device 21, pressure plate 22, and pressing rods 23 described above [0024, Fig. 1]) upstream of the microwave oven (heating machinery 14 [0029, Figs. 2, 5, and 6] is disclosed to include a heating chamber 34 which utilizes microwave sources 38 [0030, Figs. 2, 5, and 6]) configured to:
- temporarily subject the dosed amount, or each dosed amount, of the ingredient contained in a respective forming cavity of the forming device to an active compression (“lifting device 21 drives the pressing plate 22 to move, and the pressing rod 23 corresponds to the tableting groove 53 to press the powder into a sheet” [0024]), and
- interrupt said active compression before introducing the forming device into a treatment cavity or chamber of the heating device (immediately following the pressing step, “the conveyor belt 5 conveys the mold body 52 to the spraying mechanism” which is an intermediate step before “conveyor belt 5 then conveys the mold body 52 to the drying mechanism 4” [0024]; the pressing plate with pressing rods stays in place while only the mold station 51, mold body 52, and grooves 53 are conveyed along conveyor belt 5 [Fig. 1]; additionally, it can be seen in Fig. 1 that the drying oven is downstream from the pressing subsystem, where the microwave oven disclosed by Harris has been substituted for the drying oven disclosed by Liu).
Regarding claim 24, Liu in view of Harris (references cited to Liu unless otherwise noted) discloses that the handling or transport subsystem is configured to cause a displacement of at least one part of the forming device in a direction of advancement (“the conveyor belt 5 conveys the mold body 52” [0024]), between a succession of operating stations selected from among:
- one or more first handling stations for handling parts of the forming device, upstream of the heating device;
- a loading station, for loading the dosed amount, or each dosed amount, of the ingredient (after the loading is complete: “Then the conveyor belt 5 conveys the mold body 52 to the tableting mechanism 2” [0024]), upstream of the heating device (heating machinery 14 disclosed by Harris has been substituted for the drying oven 4 disclosed by Liu, which is downstream of the loading station);
- a pressing station, for pressing the dosed amount, or each dosed amount, of the ingredient (after the pressing is complete: “Then the conveyor belt 5 conveys the mold body 52 to the spraying mechanism 3” [0024]), upstream of the heating device (heating machinery 14 disclosed by Harris has been substituted for the drying oven 4 disclosed by Liu, which is downstream of the pressing station);
- a moistening station, for partial moistening of the dosed amount, or each dosed amount (after the moistening is complete: “The conveyor belt 5 then conveys the mold body 52 to the drying mechanism 4” [0024]), upstream of the heating device (heating machinery 14 disclosed by Harris has been substituted for the drying oven 4 disclosed by Liu, which is downstream of the moistening station);
- a heating station which comprises the heating device (after the drying stage: “The conveyor belt 5 preferably conveys the mold body 52 out for packaging“ [0024]; heating machinery 14 disclosed by Harris has been substituted for the drying oven 4 disclosed by Liu), having a treatment cavity or chamber (heating chamber 34 [Harris: 0030]) substantially configured as a tunnel with one entry and one exit (“Heating chamber 34 has a first aperture 96 through which food product 12 enters the heating chamber [and] a second aperture 98 through which food product 12 exits the heating chamber” [Harris: 0036, Fig. 6]),
- one or more second handling stations for handling parts of the forming device, downstream of the heating device (optional limitation);
- a separation station, for removing the tablets from at least one part of the forming device, downstream of the heating device (optional limitation);
- at least one from among a drying station, a desiccation station, a cooling station for the tablets, downstream of the heating device (optional limitation);
- a packaging station for packaging the tablets (“The conveyor belt 5 preferably conveys the mold body 52 out for packaging“ [0024]).
Regarding claim 25, Liu in view of Harris discloses that the handling or transport subsystem (conveyor belt 5 [Liu: 0024]) is configured to cause displacement of the forming device in the direction of advancement through the entry and the exit of the treatment cavity or chamber of the heating device (in the substitution of the heating machinery 14 disclosed by Harris for the drying oven 4 disclosed by Liu, conveyor belt 5 [Liu: 0024] would convey the molding body 52 [Liu: 0024] through the heating chamber 34 [Harris: 0030] via the first and second apertures 96 and 98 [Harris: 0036] in the same way that continuous belt 22 [Harris: 0029] has been disclosed to by Harris [Harris: 0036]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 204907723 U) in view of Harris (US 2003/0209542 A1), and in further view of Soquet (US 2014/0134309 A1) and Sollich (US 5044267 A).
Regarding claim 23, Liu in view of Harris does not expressly disclose further comprising at least one from among a drying subsystem, a desiccation subsystem, a cooling subsystem for the tablets, downstream of the heating device and upstream of a packaging subsystem.
Soquet discloses a method for producing coffee tablets (METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SOLUBLE COFFEE TABLETS [title]), comprising the steps of measuring a dose of soluble coffee (step a [0014]), compacting the coffee into a three-dimensional form (step b [0015, 0024-0030]), moistening the coffee on its exterior surface (step c [0016, 0031-0036]), drying the moistened and compacted coffee tablet using infrared radiation heat (step d [0017, 0037-0042]), cooling the tablet following the heating drying step, wherein the tablet is cooled by means of flow through ambient air (step e [0046, 0099]), and a packaging step, which includes packaging the tablet within moisture-tight packaging ([0100]; further, the packaging is done “under inert gas” [0100]).
Soquet does not expressly disclose that the cooling step is performed within a cooling tunnel, which is the broadest reasonable interpretation provided in the 112(f) claim interpretation of the cooling subsystem, as discussed above.
Sollich teaches a cooling tunnel (“Tunnel For Cooling, Heating, Or Drying Products Of The Foodstuffs And Especially Confectionery Industries” [title]). The tunnel (tunnel 1 [Fig. 1, col. 4, Line 68]) is provided with a transport subsystem (conveyor belt 21 [Fig. 2, Col. 5, Line 57]) intended to guide food products through the cooling tunnel.
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Soquet teaches a cooling subsystem that differs from the claimed cooling subsystem, as it is only disclosed to include ambient airflow over the tablet, while the claimed heating device, as provided by the 112(f) interpretation, includes a cooling tunnel. The cooling step involving ambient air flow disclosed by Soquet and the cooling tunnel disclosed by Sollich both perform the function of cooling and drying food products. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the cooling tunnel disclosed by Sollich for the cooling step of exposing tablets to ambient air flow disclosed by Soquet. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have achieved predictable results with this substitution because both references deal with cooling and drying food products.
Thus, Soquet in view of Sollich teaches a system that comprises at least one from among a drying subsystem (optional limitation), a desiccation subsystem (optional limitation), a cooling subsystem for the tablets (Sollich: “Tunnel For Cooling” [title]; with conveyor belt 21 to transfer food products [Col. 5, Line 57]), downstream of the heating device (Soquet: step e is “a cooling step, aimed to cool the soluble coffee tablet having been dried” [0098]; step e follows step d, which dries the tablet using infrared radiation [0042]; Note: the cooling tunnel disclosed by Sollich has been substituted for step e disclosed by Soquet and thus would be in the place of step e in the sequence described here) and upstream of a packaging subsystem (Soquet: “a final packaging step, after the drying step or after the cooling step if there is one” [0100]; the packaging step is included downstream of the cooling step because “in combination with the cooling step, this makes possible to avoid any condensation inside the packaging” [0100]; further, the packaging is done “under inert gas” [0100]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Liu in view of Harris discloses a system for producing tablets that includes all of the limitations of claim 12. However, while Liu discloses that “conveyor belt 5 preferably conveys the mold body 52 out for packaging” [Liu: 0024], there is no disclosure of what the packaging subsystem comprises. Further, Liu in view of Harris does not teach any further subsystems downstream from the heating subsystem, namely a drying subsystem, a desiccation subsystem, or a cooling subsystem. Soquet in view of Sollich teaches a cooling subsystem downstream from a heating subsystem, and a packaging subsystem downstream from the cooling subsystem. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these subsystems to include the cooling and packaging subsystems disclosed by Soquet in view of Sollich downstream from the heating subsystem disclosed by Liu in view of Harris. Liu discloses that following the drying stage in the drying oven, “conveyor belt 5 preferably conveys the mold body 52 out for packaging” [Liu: 0024]. However, Soquet teaches that it is preferable to have a cooling step between the heating and packaging steps “to avoid any condensation inside the packaging” [Soquet: 0100]. Thus, performing these steps sequentially would yield predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tablet production system disclosed by Liu in view of Harris by adding the cooling and packaging steps disclosed by Soquet in view of Sollich downstream of the heating subsystem disclosed by Liu and Harris. Because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The nearest prior art disclosing subject matter related to that of claim 20 is Liu (CN 204907723 U). Specifically, Liu discloses moistening passages (spraying pipes 32 [0024, Fig. 1]) in fluid communication with the fluidic circuit (spraying tank 31, spraying pipes 32, and spraying holes 33 [0024, Fig. 1]).
However, Liu does not disclose that the moistening passages are present within the forming cavity, or each forming cavity, or moreover, at a surface delimiting a respective forming cavity. Further, Liu discloses that the moistening passage receive the liquid from a tank (spraying tank 31 [0024]), but does not disclose that the moistening subsystem comprises one or more connecting ducts which are couplable in a releasable way to respective inlets of the least one fluidic circuit of the forming device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA RAE BOSS whose telephone number is (571)270-0274. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571)270-5569. 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.
/MARISSA RAE BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights