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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/02/05 has been entered. Claims 20-33 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/17/2025, except where otherwise stated.
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 24, 26, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 24 and 32, the meaning of “rapid pressure drop” is unclear. The term “rapid” 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. Furthermore, the claims provide no starting or ending criteria for “reducing the pressure in the compartment in less than one second”.
Regarding claims 24 and 32, the term “abruptly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abruptly” 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.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the cavity" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the mold" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 26 and 33, “increasing the pressure” provides no clarity with respect to what the pressure been increased relative to. Is it increasing compared to atmospheric pressure or increased compared to a previous vacuum, and, if the pressure increase is with respect to the vacuum, then is “atmospheric pressure” as already recited in the independent claims considered an increase in pressure? Consequently, claims 26 and 33 are 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) 20, 26, 28, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 20080233256 A1) in view of National Agricultural Library (How Does Popcorn Pop), Sugisawa (JP S59156273 A), Yi (CN 106261457 A), Cunningham (US 5740817 A), Johnson (US 20050142262 A1), Hughes (US 3189940 A), and Busch (Energy-efficient and reliable vacuum supply).
Regarding claim 20, Quinn teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0019-0021) a device for popping popcorn (puffing food), wherein un-popped kernels are placed in a container chamber; the chamber is then sealed and the chamber is connected to a vacuum source (pressure device); the vacuum source is operated and the pressure in the chamber is monitored to determine if it has been reduced to a pre-selected vacuum pressure; when the chamber vacuum pressure is equal to or less than the pre-selected pressure, heat/energy is applied to the chamber; the heat popping process progress/status may be timed or monitored based on a drop in popping rate; once the time has expired (or the popping rate indicates most of the kernels are popped), the heat/energy and vacuum sources are discontinued, the vacuum in the chamber is broken, the container is opened, and the popped corn is removed (where corn that is popped/puffed is understood to have reached breakage threshold conditions), wherein, in some embodiments, the vacuum source can be operated continuously (i.e., the pressure is reduced while heating is performed). Quinn further teaches (Paragraph 0025, 0031; Fig. 3 #152, 154, 158) a vacuum source 152 is operated with a valve 154 positioned to allow fluid flow from the vacuum source 152 to a container 158, wherein, in an embodiment, the vacuum source is a vacuum pump. Also, Quinn teaches (Paragraph 0020) heat/energy can be applied to the chamber using any suitable heat or energy source, such as, for example, providing a stove-top heating element placed in close proximity to the container, applying microwave energy to the chamber, or by integrating a heating element into the container itself.
It is noted that Quinn states, “in a closed position, the valve 154 preferably provides a fluid path to the container 158 from the vacuum source 152” and “in an open position, the valve 154, proves a fluid connection between the container 158 and the ambient air surrounding the apparatus 50”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Quinn is simply indicating that the valve can be adjusted between a position open to the vacuum source and a position open to the atmosphere, and, therefore, during operation of the vacuum pump, the valve is understood to be open, in that the valve allows communication between the container and the pump, even if the term “closed position” is used.
Also, Quinn states (Paragraph 0019) un-popped kernels are placed in the container chamber, the chamber is then sealed and connected to a vacuum source. Quinn further states (Paragraph 0032) when the popcorn popping is complete, operation of the vacuum source 252 is discontinued, and valve 254 is positioned to allow fluid flow to atmosphere and break the vacuum in the container 258. Thus, while Quinn does not explicitly state that pressure in the compartment is reduced from atmospheric pressure, Quinn states that the compartment is sealed, subjected to vacuum, and then the vacuum is broken allowing fluid flow to atmosphere, which indicates that the initial pressure is also atmosphere.
Furthermore, while not explicitly stated, it is known in the art, for example from National Agricultural Library that a kernel of popcorn contains a small amount of water stored inside a circle
of soft starch, wherein the soft starch is surrounded by the kernel's hard outer surface (shell), and as the kernel heats up, the water expands, building pressure against the hard starch surface, until, eventually, this outer layer gives way, causing the popcorn to explode, wherein, as it explodes, the soft starch inside the popcorn becomes inflated and bursts, turning the kernel inside out, and the steam (vapor) inside the kernel is released, and the popcorn is popped. Thus, the kernels of corn disclosed in Quinn would be understood to be a profood item with the claimed composition and would rupture and release vapor in the manner described by National Agricultural Library.
Additionally, while Quinn does not explicitly state that the breakage temperature is reduced, Quinn teaches subjecting a profood item of the claimed composition to pressure reduction and heating to produce a puffed foodstuff as claimed by the Applicant, and, therefore, subjecting the claimed food item to the claimed treatment method would likely if not necessarily have the same effect of reducing the breakage temperature Also, it is known in the art, for example from Sugisawa (Page 3) that when food is placed under reduced pressure, the boiling point of water naturally drops (reduced breakage temperature), which causes the water in the food, especially the free water, to evaporate, and the food expands.
Quinn is silent on the apparatus being configured to reduce pressure in the compartment to between 3-20 kPa in less than one second. Furthermore, Quinn is silent on the pressure device comprising a vacuum piston. Quinn is also silent on the pressure device comprising an accumulator connected to and in fluid communication with the vacuum pump and the valve. Additionally Quinn is silent on a time within 10-100 milliseconds for operating the vacuum pump and opening the valve to pump air from the compartment.
Sugisawa teaches (Page 1, 5) swelling and drying food under reduced pressure, wherein, in an exemplary embodiment, cooked rice is heated under pressure to increase its temperature, and then subjected to a vacuum swelling treatment, wherein the pressure reduction rate must be within one second from normal pressure to the desired pressure reduction level. Sugisawa further teaches (Page 7) treating the rice in a vacuum chamber connected to a vacuum pump.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to configure the apparatus to reduce pressure in the compartment within a second as taught by Sugisawa, since both are directed to devices for producing expanded starch based food products by reducing pressure with a vacuum pump, since reducing pressure in the compartment within a second is known in the art as shown by Sugisawa, since a shorter pressure reduction time would allow for faster popcorn production, providing convenience to the consumer, and improving profitability of production, and since when the food is placed under reduced pressure for a short period of time, the food expands (Sugisawa, Page 3).
Furthermore, the claimed pressure reduction time of less than one second would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Quinn based upon factors such as the volume of the container (where a smaller volume container could be evacuated more quickly), the amount of pressure reduction (where a smaller reduction would occur sooner), the capacity of the vacuum pump, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed pressure reduction time of less than one second that would render it non-obvious.
Yi teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0012-0013) an instantaneous pressure differential sterilization method and its application in the sterilization of apple powder, wherein a powdered material is subjected to pressurization of 0.1-0.8 MPa (which includes atmospheric pressure of 0.101 MPa) followed by depressurization in the processing chamber to 3-5 kPa (which falls withing the claimed range of 3-20 kPa) within 20-200 ms (which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds). Yi further teaches (Paragraph 0027) instantaneous pressure differential treatment has a swelling effect (puffing) on the powder.
It is noted that Yi does not explicitly state that a vacuum pump is used to pump air from the compartment within 10-100 milliseconds. However, Quinn discloses the use of vacuum pump for a puffing operation, and vacuum pumps capable operating according to the claimed parameters are known in the art.
For example, Cunningham teaches (Col. 1, lines 42-46, 61-63; Col. 3, lines 7-9) a method of processing of smoking materials, wherein a vacuum pump is used to reduce the pressure in a bell jar to expand the smoking material and the pressure reduction to vacuum conditions is rapid and, typically, takes place in about 0.04 seconds (40 milliseconds, which falls within the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds) and pressure on the smoking material is preferably reduced from atmospheric pressure to from 0.1 to 50 kPa (which encompasses the claimed range of 3-20 kPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to reduce the pressure in the compartment to between 3-20 kPa by pumping air from the compartment within 10-100 milliseconds using a vacuum pump in view of Yi and Cunningham, since both Quinn and Yi are directed to methods of producing puffed food products by pressure reduction, since subjecting a food product to depressurization in the processing chamber to 3-5 kPa (which falls withing the claimed range of 3-20 kPa) by removing air within 20-200 ms (which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds) 0.1 to 50 kPa (which encompasses the claimed range of 3-20 kPa) is known in the art as shown by Yi, since a vacuum pump that can reduce the pressure in a chamber from atmospheric pressure to in about 0.04 seconds (40 milliseconds, which falls within the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds) is known in the art as shown by Cunningham, since a shorter pressure reduction time would allow for faster popcorn production, providing convenience to the consumer, and improving profitability of production, since depressurization in the processing chamber to 3-5 kPa (which falls withing the claimed range of 3-20 kPa) by removing air within 20-200 ms (which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds) is able to successfully puff a food product (YI, Paragraph 0027), since rapid pressure reduction in about 0.04 seconds is well suited to expansion of the depressurized product (Cunningham, Col. 1, lines 62-63), and since he process is simple, and the operation is convenient (Yi, Paragraph 0028).
Johnson teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0011) an apparatus for formation of puffed cereal cakes, wherein the puffed cereal cakes can be formed from a wide variety of grains including corn. Johnson further teaches (Paragraph 0012) the grain is added to a mold comprising a stationary heated lower platen mold half and a heated upper platen having a reciprocally movable piston, wherein the piston initially applies a pressure of from about 3 to 15 MPa and then the piston is rapidly retracted a distance of from about 3 to 25 millimeters to decrease the pressure and puff the grains (where a piston that is used to reduce the internal pressure of a container is understood to be a vacuum piston).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to incorporate a vacuum piston in view of Johnson since both are directed to devices for preparing puffed grain products including puffed corn (popcorn), since an apparatus with a vacuum piston for the production of puffed corn (popcorn) is known in the art as shown by Johnson, since the vacuum piston can provide additional pressure reduction to improve the rate of popcorn production and/or to increase to volume of the container and the amount of popcorn that can be produced, since the vacuum piston can be used to puff the corn if the vacuum pump is inoperable, and since the vacuum piston can increase and decrease pressure, so a greater pressure differential can be created for the puffing process.
Hughes teaches (Col. 1, lines 24-25; Col. 2, lines 21-30) a deaerating machine for sausage batter or the like, wherein a vacuum pump is used to evacuate a chamber containing the batter. Hughes further teaches (Col. 4, lines 53-55) an accumulator may be employed to increase the effective capacity of the vacuum pump.
Busch teaches (Paragraph 4) meat packaging using vacuum pumps, wherein a vacuum accumulator is provided to guarantee that the required vacuum level is permanently and quickly available.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to provide an accumulator connected to and in fluid communication with the vacuum pump and the valve in view of Hughes and Busch, since each of Hughes, Busch, and Quinn is directed to an apparatus for subjecting a food product to reduced pressure using a vacuum pump, since using a vacuum accumulator with a vacuum pump (where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the accumulator must necessarily be connected to and in fluid communication with the vacuum pump and the valve in order to function) is known in the art as shown by Hughes and Busch, since an accumulator may be employed to increase the effective capacity of the vacuum pump (Hughes, Col. 4, lines 53-55) thus allowing a greater amount of popcorn to be produced, and since a vacuum accumulator can guarantee that the required vacuum level is permanently and quickly available (Busch Paragraph 4), thus reducing production time.
Regarding claim 26, Quinn is silent on the pressure device being configured to increase pressure in the compartment before reducing pressure in the compartment.
As shown above, Johnson teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0011) a method for formation of puffed cereal cakes, wherein the puffed cereal cakes can be formed from a wide variety of grains including corn. Johnson further teaches (Paragraph 0012) the grain is added to a mold comprising a stationary heated lower platen mold half and a heated upper platen having a reciprocally movable piston, wherein the piston initially applies a pressure of from about 3 to 15 MPa and then the piston is rapidly retracted a distance of from about 3 to 25 millimeters to decrease the pressure and puff the grains.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to configure the pressure device to increase pressure in the compartment before reducing pressure in the compartment as taught by Johnson since both are directed to devices for preparing puffed grain products including puffed corn (popcorn), since configuring the pressure device to increase pressure in the compartment before reducing pressure in the compartment is known in the art as shown by Johnson, since decreasing pressure after a pressure increase can create a greater pressure differential for the puffing process, thus shortening and/or ensuring the desired puffing by creating a greater difference in pressure between the interior and exterior of the profood item that will cause the shell to rupture, and since increasing the pressure initially can reduce the level of pressure reduction required to rupture the shell.
Regarding claim 28, Quinn teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0019-0021) a method for popping popcorn, wherein un-popped kernels are placed in a container chamber; the chamber is then sealed and the chamber is connected to a vacuum source; the vacuum source is operated and the pressure in the chamber is monitored to determine if it has been reduced to a pre-selected vacuum pressure; when the chamber vacuum pressure is equal to or less than the pre-selected pressure, heat/energy is applied to the chamber; the heat popping process progress/status may be timed or monitored based on a drop in popping rate; once the time has expired (or the popping rate indicates most of the kernels are popped), the heat/energy and vacuum sources are discontinued, the vacuum in the chamber is broken, the container is opened, and the popped corn is removed (where corn that is popped/puffed is understood to have reached breakage threshold conditions), wherein, in some embodiments, the vacuum source can be operated continuously (i.e., the pressure is reduced while heating is performed). Quinn further teaches (Paragraph 0025, 0031; Fig. 3 #152, 154, 158) a vacuum source 152 is operated with a valve 154 positioned to allow fluid flow from the vacuum source 152 to a container 158, wherein, in an embodiment, the vacuum source is a vacuum pump.
It is noted that Quinn states, “in a closed position, the valve 154 preferably provides a fluid path to the container 158 from the vacuum source 152” and “in an open position, the valve 154, proves a fluid connection between the container 158 and the ambient air surrounding the apparatus 50”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Quinn is simply indicating that the valve can be adjusted between a position open to the vacuum source and a position open to the atmosphere, and, therefore, during operation of the vacuum pump, the valve is understood to be open, in that the valve allows communication between the container and the pump, even if the term “closed position” is used.
Also, Quinn states (Paragraph 0019) un-popped kernels are placed in the container chamber, the chamber is then sealed and connected to a vacuum source. Quinn further states (Paragraph 0032) when the popcorn popping is complete, operation of the vacuum source 252 is discontinued, and valve 254 is positioned to allow fluid flow to atmosphere and break the vacuum in the container 258. Thus, while Quinn does not explicitly state that pressure in the compartment is reduced from atmospheric pressure, Quinn states that the compartment is sealed, subjected to vacuum, and then the vacuum is broken allowing fluid flow to atmosphere, which indicates that the initial pressure is also atmosphere.
Furthermore, while not explicitly stated, it is known in the art, for example from National Agricultural Library that a kernel of popcorn contains a small amount of water stored inside a circle
of soft starch, wherein the soft starch is surrounded by the kernel's hard outer surface (shell), and as the kernel heats up, the water expands, building pressure against the hard starch surface, until, eventually, this outer layer gives way, causing the popcorn to explode, wherein, as it explodes, the soft starch inside the popcorn becomes inflated and bursts, turning the kernel inside out, and the steam (vapor) inside the kernel is released, and the popcorn is popped. Thus, the kernels of corn disclosed in Quinn would be understood to be a profood item with the claimed composition and would rupture and release vapor in the manner described by National Agricultural Library.
Additionally, while Quinn does not explicitly state that the breakage temperature is reduced, Quinn teaches subjecting a profood item of the claimed composition to pressure reduction and heating to produce a puffed foodstuff as claimed by the Applicant, and, therefore, subjecting the claimed food item to the claimed treatment method would likely if not necessarily have the same effect of reducing the breakage temperature Also, it is known in the art, for example from Sugisawa (Page 3) that when food is placed under reduced pressure, the boiling point of water naturally drops (reduced breakage temperature), which causes the water in the food, especially the free water, to evaporate, and the food expands.
Quinn is silent on rapidly reducing the pressure in the compartment to between 3-20 kPa in less than one second. Furthermore, Quinn is silent on the pressure device comprising a vacuum piston. Quinn is also silent on the pressure device comprising an accumulator connected to and in fluid communication with the vacuum pump and the valve. Additionally Quinn is silent on a time within 10-100 milliseconds for operating the vacuum pump and opening the valve to pump air from the compartment.
Sugisawa teaches (Page 1, 5) a method for swelling and drying food under reduced
pressure, wherein, in an exemplary embodiment, cooked rice is heated under
pressure to increase its temperature, and then subjected to a vacuum swelling treatment, wherein the pressure reduction rate must be within one second from normal pressure to the
desired pressure reduction level. Sugisawa further teaches (Page 7) treating the rice in a vacuum chamber connected to a vacuum pump.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to reduce pressure in the compartment within a second as taught by Sugisawa, since both are directed to methods of producing expanded starch based food products by reducing pressure with a vacuum pump, since reducing pressure in the compartment within a second is known in the art as shown by Sugisawa, since a shorter pressure reduction time would allow for faster popcorn production, providing convenience to the consumer, and improving profitability of production, and since when the
food is placed under reduced pressure for a short period of time, the food expands (Sugisawa, Page 3).
Furthermore, the claimed pressure reduction time of less than one second would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Quinn based upon factors such as the volume of the container (where a smaller volume container could be evacuated more quickly), the amount of pressure reduction (where a smaller reduction would occur sooner), the capacity of the vacuum pump, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed pressure reduction time of less than one second that would render it non-obvious.
Yi teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0012-0013) an instantaneous pressure differential sterilization method and its application in the sterilization of apple powder, wherein a powdered material is subjected to pressurization of 0.1-0.8 MPa (which includes atmospheric pressure of 0.101 MPa) followed by depressurization in the processing chamber to 3-5 kPa (which falls withing the claimed range of 3-20 kPa) within 20-200 ms (which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds). Yi further teaches (Paragraph 0027) instantaneous pressure differential treatment has a swelling effect (puffing) on the powder.
It is noted that Yi does not explicitly state that a vacuum pump is used to pump air from the compartment within 10-100 milliseconds. However, Quinn discloses the use of vacuum pump for a puffing operation, and vacuum pumps capable operating according to the claimed parameters are known in the art.
For example, Cunningham teaches (Col. 1, lines 42-46, 61-63; Col. 3, lines 7-9) a method of processing of smoking materials, wherein a vacuum pump is used to reduce the pressure in a bell jar to expand the smoking material and the pressure reduction to vacuum conditions is rapid and, typically, takes place in about 0.04 seconds (40 milliseconds, which falls within the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds) and pressure on the smoking material is preferably reduced from atmospheric pressure to from 0.1 to 50 kPa (which encompasses the claimed range of 3-20 kPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to reduce the pressure in the compartment to between 3-20 kPa by pumping air from the compartment within 10-100 milliseconds using a vacuum pump in view of Yi and Cunningham, since both Quinn and Yi are directed to methods of producing puffed food products by pressure reduction, since subjecting a food product to depressurization in the processing chamber to 3-5 kPa (which falls withing the claimed range of 3-20 kPa) by removing air within 20-200 ms (which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds) 0.1 to 50 kPa (which encompasses the claimed range of 3-20 kPa) is known in the art as shown by Yi, since a vacuum pump that can reduce the pressure in a chamber from atmospheric pressure to in about 0.04 seconds (40 milliseconds, which falls within the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds) is known in the art as shown by Cunningham, since a shorter pressure reduction time would allow for faster popcorn production, providing convenience to the consumer, and improving profitability of production, since depressurization in the processing chamber to 3-5 kPa (which falls withing the claimed range of 3-20 kPa) by removing air within 20-200 ms (which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-100 milliseconds) is able to successfully puff a food product (YI, Paragraph 0027), since rapid pressure reduction in about 0.04 seconds is well suited to expansion of the depressurized product (Cunningham, Col. 1, lines 62-63), and since he process is simple, and the operation is convenient (Yi, Paragraph 0028).
Johnson teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0011) a method for formation of puffed cereal cakes, wherein the puffed cereal cakes can be formed from a wide variety of grains including corn. Johnson further teaches (Paragraph 0012) the grain is added to a mold comprising a stationary heated lower platen mold half and a heated upper platen having a reciprocally movable piston, wherein the piston initially applies a pressure of from about 3 to 15 MPa and then the piston is rapidly retracted a distance of from about 3 to 25 millimeters to decrease the pressure and puff the grains (where a piston that is used to reduce the internal pressure of a container is understood to be a vacuum piston).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to incorporate the use of a vacuum piston in view of Johnson since both are directed to methods of preparing puffed grain products including puffed corn (popcorn), since using a vacuum piston in the production of puffed corn (popcorn) is known in the art as shown by Johnson, since the vacuum piston can provide additional pressure reduction to improve the rate of popcorn production and/or to increase to volume of the container and the amount of popcorn that can be produced, since the vacuum piston can be used to puff the corn if the vacuum pump is inoperable, and since the vacuum piston can increase and decrease pressure, so a greater pressure differential can be created for the puffing process.
Hughes teaches (Col. 1, lines 24-25; Col. 2, lines 21-30) a method of operating a deaerating machine for sausage batter or the like, wherein a vacuum pump is used to evacuate a chamber containing the batter. Hughes further teaches (Col. 4, lines 53-55) an accumulator may be employed to increase the effective capacity of the vacuum pump.
Busch teaches (Paragraph 4) a method of meat packaging using vacuum pumps, wherein a vacuum accumulator is provided to guarantee that the required vacuum level is permanently and quickly available.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to provide an accumulator connected to and in fluid communication with the vacuum pump and the valve in view of Hughes and Busch, since each of Hughes, Busch, and Quinn is directed to a method of subjecting a food product to reduced pressure using a vacuum pump, since using a vacuum accumulator with a vacuum pump (where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the accumulator must necessarily be connected to and in fluid communication with the vacuum pump and the valve in order to function) is known in the art as shown by Hughes and Busch, since an accumulator may be employed to increase the effective capacity of the vacuum pump (Hughes, Col. 4, lines 53-55) thus allowing a greater amount of popcorn to be produced, and since a vacuum accumulator can guarantee that the required vacuum level is permanently and quickly available (Busch Paragraph 4), thus reducing production time.
Regarding claim 32, Quinn teaches (Paragraph 0019-0021) the chamber is then sealed and the chamber is connected to a vacuum source; the vacuum source is operated and the pressure in the chamber is reduced.
Quinn is silent on initiating a rapid pressure drop in the cavity, by abruptly pulling the vacuum piston while the mold is closed and sealed.
As shown above, Johnson teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0011) a method for formation of puffed cereal cakes, wherein the puffed cereal cakes can be formed from a wide variety of grains including corn. Johnson further teaches (Paragraph 0012) the grain is added to a mold comprising a stationary heated lower platen mold half and a heated upper platen having a reciprocally movable piston, wherein the piston initially applies a pressure of from about 3 to 15 MPa and then the piston is rapidly retracted a distance of from about 3 to 25 millimeters to decrease the pressure and puff the grains. Also, Johnson teaches (Paragraph 0012) after the grain has been deposited in the lower platen mold half the upper platen is lowered (mold is closed) and its piston compresses the grains in the mold (direct pressure). Also, while not explicitly stated, the mold is necessarily sealed as a sealed enclosure is necessary to increase and decrease the internal pressure for puffing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to initiating a rapid pressure drop in the cavity, by abruptly pulling the vacuum piston while the mold is closed and sealed in view of Johnson since both are directed to methods of preparing puffed grain products including puffed corn (popcorn), since reducing pressure by removing air with a vacuum pump is known from Quinn, since initiating a rapid pressure drop in the cavity, by abruptly pulling the vacuum piston while the mold is closed and sealed is known in the art as shown by Johnson, since the vacuum piston can provide additional pressure reduction to improve the rate of popcorn production and/or to increase to volume of the container and the amount of popcorn that can be produced, since the vacuum piston can increase and decrease pressure, so a greater pressure differential can be created for the puffing process, and since the vacuum piston can be used to puff the corn if the vacuum pump is inoperable.
Regarding claim 33, Quinn is silent on increasing pressure in the compartment before reducing pressure in the compartment.
As shown above, Johnson teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0011) a method for formation of puffed cereal cakes, wherein the puffed cereal cakes can be formed from a wide variety of grains including corn. Johnson further teaches (Paragraph 0012) the grain is added to a mold comprising a stationary heated lower platen mold half and a heated upper platen having a reciprocally movable piston, wherein the piston initially applies a pressure of from about 3 to 15 MPa and then the piston is rapidly retracted a distance of from about 3 to 25 millimeters to decrease the pressure and puff the grains.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to increase pressure in the compartment before reducing pressure in the compartment as taught by Johnson since both are directed to methods of preparing puffed grain products including puffed corn (popcorn), since increasing pressure in the compartment before reducing pressure in the compartment is known in the art as shown by Johnson, since decreasing pressure after a pressure increase can create a greater pressure differential for the puffing process, thus shortening and/or ensuring the desired puffing by creating a greater difference in pressure between the interior and exterior of the profood item that will cause the shell to rupture, and since increasing the pressure initially can reduce the level of pressure reduction required to rupture the shell.
Claim(s) 21 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 20080233256 A1) in view of National Agricultural Library (How Does Popcorn Pop), Sugisawa (JP S59156273 A), Yi (CN 106261457 A), Cunningham (US 5740817 A), Johnson (US 20050142262 A1), Hughes (US 3189940 A), and Busch (Energy-efficient and reliable vacuum supply), and further in view of Helman (US 6460451 B1) and Kruszelnicki (Popcorn).
Regarding claim 21, Quinn, as modified above, is silent on the reduced breakage temperature being in the range of: 200 °C – 220 °C.
Helman teaches (Col. 8, lines 60-64) a popcorn maker 10 for roasting and popping corn kernels 12 into popped corn 14, hereinafter also called popcorn 14. The corn kernels 12 are typically popped into the popcorn 14 at the optimum popping temperature, which is between 400 and 460 degrees Fahrenheit (204-237 °C).
Kruszelnicki teaches temperatures somewhere between 204°C and 232°C cause corn kernels to explode into popcorn.
Therefore, it is known in the art that popcorn can pop or break at temperatures overlapping with the claimed range.
Furthermore, the claimed reduced breakage temperature range of 200 °C – 220 °C would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures for the apparatus of Quinn, as modified above, based upon factors such as the initial pressure and amount of pressure reduction (where the boiling point of water/steam formation that causes the breakage will occur at lower temperatures when the pressure is lowered), the type of corn popped, the rate of pressure reduction, the size and thickness of the corn kernels, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed reduced breakage temperature range of 200 °C – 220 °C that would render it non-obvious.
Regarding claim 29, Quinn, as modified above, is silent on the reduced breakage temperature being in the range of: 200 °C – 220 °C.
Helman teaches (Col. 8, lines 60-64) a popcorn maker 10 for roasting and popping corn kernels 12 into popped corn 14, hereinafter also called popcorn 14. The corn kernels 12 are typically popped into the popcorn 14 at the optimum popping temperature, which is between 400 and 460 degrees Fahrenheit (204-237 °C).
Kruszelnicki teaches temperatures somewhere between 204°C and 232°C cause corn kernels to explode into popcorn.
Therefore, it is known in the art that popcorn can pop or break at temperatures overlapping with the claimed range.
Furthermore, the claimed reduced breakage temperature range of 200 °C – 220 °C would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Quinn, as modified above, based upon factors such as the initial pressure and amount of pressure reduction (where the boiling point of water/steam formation that causes the breakage will occur at lower temperatures when the pressure is lowered), the type of corn popped, the rate of pressure reduction, the size and thickness of the corn kernels, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed reduced breakage temperature range of 200 °C – 220 °C that would render it non-obvious.
Claim(s) 22 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 20080233256 A1) in view of National Agricultural Library (How Does Popcorn Pop), Sugisawa (JP S59156273 A), Yi (CN 106261457 A), Cunningham (US 5740817 A), Johnson (US 20050142262 A1), Hughes (US 3189940 A), and Busch (Energy-efficient and reliable vacuum supply), and further in view of Levin (US 20130251877 A1) and Gers (GB 2399274 A).
Regarding claim 22, Quinn, as modified above, is silent on the duration from placing the profood item in the compartment to producing the puffed food product being in the range of: 6-7 seconds.
However, the claimed duration from placing the profood item in the compartment to producing the puffed food product in the range of 6-7 seconds would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures for the apparatus of Quinn, as modified above, based upon factors such as the initial pressure and amount of pressure reduction (where the boiling point of water/steam formation that causes the breakage will occur sooner when the pressure is lowered), the type of corn popped, the rate of pressure reduction, the size and thickness of the corn kernels, the initial temperature and heating rate of the kernels, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed puffing process cycle time in the range of 6-7 seconds that would render it non-obvious.
Further, since Quinn is silent with regards to the duration from placing the profood item in the compartment to producing the puffed food product one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for a suitable duration.
Levin teaches (Claims 1, 20, 22; paragraph 35) a method of producing a snack product, comprising rapidly expanding the volume of a chamber to cause a rapid expansion of the base product to form a snack product comprising the mixture of an expanded base product and inclusions, wherein the expandable base product comprises kernels of popcorn in an embodiment, and wherein the chamber is expanded over a period of approximately 2 to 7.5 seconds (which encompasses the claimed range) in an embodiment.
Gers teaches (Page 1, lines 1-5; Page 6, lines 1-10; 21-23) a method of making an expanded starchy cake or cracker, the method comprising: charging a starchy granular material into a cake or cracker-forming chamber; and, in an operative stage, operating a servo motor and heating element so as to subject said starchy granular material to compression and heating, followed by rapid expansion; wherein the duration of the operative stage is preferably less than about 10 seconds, and more preferably from about 2 to about 7 seconds (which encompasses the claimed range of 6-7 seconds), wherein starchy granular materials include corn.
Selection of a known duration based on its suitability for its intended use (producing a puffed food product) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 30, Quinn, as modified above, is silent on the duration from placing the profood item in the compartment to producing the puffed food product being in the range of: 6-7 seconds.
However, the claimed duration from placing the profood item in the compartment to producing the puffed food product in the range of 6-7 seconds would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures for the method of Quinn, as modified above, based upon factors such as the initial pressure and amount of pressure reduction (where the boiling point of water/steam formation that causes the breakage will occur sooner when the pressure is lowered), the type of corn popped, the rate of pressure reduction, the size and thickness of the corn kernels, the initial temperature and heating rate of the kernels, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed puffing process cycle time in the range of 6-7 seconds that would render it non-obvious.
Further, since Quinn is silent with regards to the duration from placing the profood item in the compartment to producing the puffed food product one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for a suitable duration.
Levin teaches (Claims 1, 20, 22) a method of producing a snack product, comprising rapidly expanding the volume of a chamber to cause a rapid expansion of the base product to form a snack product comprising the mixture of an expanded base product and inclusions, wherein the expandable base product comprises kernels of popcorn in an embodiment, and wherein the chamber is expanded over a period of approximately 2 to 7.5 seconds (which encompasses the claimed range) in an embodiment.
Gers teaches (Page 1, lines 1-5; Page 6, lines 1-10; 21-23) a method of making an expanded starchy cake or cracker, the method comprising: charging a starchy granular material into a cake or cracker-forming chamber; and, in an operative stage, operating a servo motor and heating element so as to subject said starchy granular material to compression and heating, followed by rapid expansion; wherein the duration of the operative stage is preferably less than about 10 seconds, and more preferably from about 2 to about 7 seconds (which encompasses the claimed range of 6-7 seconds), wherein starchy granular materials include corn.
Selection of a known duration based on its suitability for its intended use (producing a puffed food product) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 23-24 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 20080233256 A1) in view of National Agricultural Library (How Does Popcorn Pop), Sugisawa (JP S59156273 A), Yi (CN 106261457 A), Cunningham (US 5740817 A), Johnson (US 20050142262 A1), Hughes (US 3189940 A), and Busch (Energy-efficient and reliable vacuum supply), and further in view Ramirez (US 20100009055 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Quinn teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0019-0021) a device for popping popcorn (puffing food), wherein un-popped kernels are placed in a container chamber; the chamber is then sealed and the chamber is connected to a vacuum source (pressure device); the vacuum source is operated and the pressure in the chamber is monitored to determine if it has been reduced to a pre-selected vacuum pressure; when the chamber vacuum pressure is equal to or less than the pre-selected pressure, heat/energy is applied to the chamber (heatable cavity).
Quinn, as modified above, is silent on the compartment comprising at least one mold, and wherein the profood item is placed in a mold, wherein the mold is sized or shaped to induce a selected size or shape of the puffed food product.
Ramirez teaches (Paragraph 0006) an apparatus for preparing an expanded food product wherein a shelf-stable half-product or pellet, designed to puff and expand upon exposure to microwave or radio frequency energy, is charged into a microwave-safe mold, the interior walls of which form a target shape, and exposed to microwave energy or radio frequency energy, causing the half-product to expand and substantially fill the mold, wherein the resulting snack product is substantially molded into the target shape when it is ejected from the mold. Ramirez further teaches (Paragraph 0029) whole food inclusions are optionally charged into the mold cavity along with the expandable pellets described above, wherein examples of whole food inclusions are whole grains such as whole kernels of corn. Also, Ramirez teaches, an exemplary embodiment wherein the charged mold is subjected to microwave energy in a consumer grade microwave oven (compartment/heatable cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn, as modified above to provide the compartment with a mold, wherein the profood item is placed in a mold in a heatable cavity, wherein the mold is sized or shaped to induce a selected size or shape of the puffed food product as taught by Ramirez, since both are directed to devices for producing puffed food products including corn kernels in heatable cavities, since placing a profood item in a mold in a compartment/heatable cavity, wherein the mold is sized or shaped to induce a selected size or shape of the puffed food product is known in the art as shown by Ramirez, since a mold will allow users to choose shapes and sizes for the resultant food product that suit their needs and tastes, such as by choosing shapes that are aesthetically appealing to the consumer, or selecting sizes to produce a product that is easily consumed or has the desired amount of food material, and since a mold can hold the puffed food product in place and make removal from the compartment easier compared to collecting scattered pieces of popcorn/puffed food.
Regarding claim 24, Quinn teaches (Paragraph 0019-0021) the chamber (heatable cavity) is then sealed and the chamber is connected to a vacuum source; the vacuum source is operated and the pressure in the chamber is reduced (while not explicitly stated vacuum pumps are well understood in the art to reduce pressure by removing air); when the chamber vacuum pressure is equal to or less than the pre-selected pressure, heat/energy is applied to the chamber and the corn is kernels are turned into popcorn; wherein, in some embodiments, the vacuum source can be operated continuously (i.e., the pressure is reduced/air is removed while heating is performed and corn is puffed/popped).
Quinn is silent on the pressure device comprising a vacuum piston configured to initiate a rapid pressure drop in the heatable cavity by being pulled abruptly while the mold is closed and sealed. Quinn is further silent on initiating the rapid pressure drop comprising simultaneously reducing direct pressure by ceasing application of pressure to the profood item.
As shown above with regard to claim 20, Johnson teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0011) a method for formation of puffed cereal cakes, wherein the puffed cereal cakes can be formed from a wide variety of grains including corn. Johnson further teaches (Paragraph 0012) the grain is added to a mold comprising a stationary heated lower platen mold half and a heated upper platen having a reciprocally movable piston, wherein the piston initially applies a pressure of from about 3 to 15 MPa and then the piston is rapidly retracted a distance of from about 3 to 25 millimeters to decrease the pressure and puff the grains. Also, Johnson teaches (Paragraph 0012) after the grain has been deposited in the lower platen mold half the upper platen is lowered (mold is closed) and its piston compresses the grains in the mold (direct pressure). Also, while not explicitly stated, the mold is necessarily sealed as a sealed enclosure is necessary to increase and decrease the internal pressure for puffing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to configure the pressure device to comprise a vacuum piston configured to initiate a rapid pressure drop in the heatable cavity by being pulled abruptly while the mold is closed and sealed and to initiate the rapid pressure drop comprising simultaneously reducing direct pressure by ceasing application of pressure to the profood item in view of Johnson since both are directed devices for preparing puffed grain products including puffed corn (popcorn), since reducing pressure by removing air with a vacuum pump is known from Quinn, since using a vacuum piston configured to initiate a rapid pressure drop in the heatable cavity by being pulled abruptly while the mold is closed and sealed and to initiating the pressure drop comprising reducing direct pressure by ceasing application of pressure to the profood item is known in the art as shown by Johnson, since the vacuum piston can provide additional pressure reduction to improve the rate of popcorn production and/or to increase to volume of the container and the amount of popcorn that can be produced, since the vacuum piston can increase and decrease pressure, so a greater pressure differential can be created for the puffing process, since both Quinn and Johnson teach a reduction of pressure during puffing of a cereal grain product, so one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that performing the pressure reduction methods of Quinn and Johnson together during puffing would constitute simultaneous reduction of direct pressure and removal of air, since performing simultaneous reduction of direct pressure and removal of air would reduce production time and increase to total pressure reduction for fast puffing and/or production of a greater amount of popcorn.
Regarding claim 31, Quinn teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0019-0021) a device for popping popcorn (puffing food), wherein un-popped kernels are placed in a container chamber; the chamber is then sealed and the chamber is connected to a vacuum source (pressure device); the vacuum source is operated and the pressure in the chamber is monitored to determine if it has been reduced to a pre-selected vacuum pressure; when the chamber vacuum pressure is equal to or less than the pre-selected pressure, heat/energy is applied to the chamber (heatable cavity).
Quinn, as modified above, is silent on the profood item being placed in a mold in the a heatable cavity, wherein the mold is sized or shaped to induce a selected size or shape of the puffed food product.
Ramirez teaches (Paragraph 0006) a method of preparing an expanded food product wherein a shelf-stable half-product or pellet, designed to puff and expand upon exposure to microwave or radio frequency energy, is charged into a microwave-safe mold, the interior walls of which form a target shape, and exposed to microwave energy or radio frequency energy, causing the half-product to expand and substantially fill the mold, wherein the resulting snack product is substantially molded into the target shape when it is ejected from the mold. Ramirez further teaches (Paragraph 0029) whole food inclusions are optionally charged into the mold cavity along with the expandable pellets described above, wherein examples of whole food inclusions are whole grains such as whole kernels of corn. Also, Ramirez teaches, an exemplary embodiment wherein the charged mold is subjected to microwave energy in a consumer grade microwave oven (compartment/heatable cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn, as modified above to place the profood item in a mold in a heatable cavity, wherein the mold is sized or shaped to induce a selected size or shape of the puffed food product as taught by Ramirez, since both are directed to methods of producing puffed food products including corn kernels, since placing a profood item in a mold in a heatable cavity, wherein the mold is sized or shaped to induce a selected size or shape of the puffed food product is known in the art as shown by Ramirez, since using a mold will allow users to choose shapes and sizes for the resultant food product that suit their needs and tastes, such as by choosing shapes that are aesthetically appealing to the consumer, or selecting sizes to produce a product that is easily consumed or has the desired amount of food material, and since a mold can hold the puffed food product in place and make removal from the compartment easier compared to collecting scattered pieces of popcorn/puffed food.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 20080233256 A1) in view of National Agricultural Library (How Does Popcorn Pop), Sugisawa (JP S59156273 A), Yi (CN 106261457 A), Cunningham (US 5740817 A), Johnson (US 20050142262 A1), Hughes (US 3189940 A), and Busch (Energy-efficient and reliable vacuum supply), and further in view of Evans (US 20030159591 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Quinn, as modified above, is silent on a temperature regulator, configured to regulate the temperature in the compartment.
Evans teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0012) an automatic popcorn popper, wherein a heat control system includes a temperature controller (temperature regulator) for determining when the heating elements will be turned ON through one or more of the relays, and a sensor thermally coupled to the kettle (compartment) inputs a signal to the temperature controller, wherein, if the kettle (compartment) has reached a temperature set point, the temperature controller effectively de-energizes the relays to prevent power from being delivered to any of the heating elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn, as modified above, to provide a temperature regulator, configured to regulate the temperature in the compartment as taught by Evans, since both are directed to devices for producing popcorn, since providing a temperature regulator, configured to regulate the temperature in the compartment is known in the art as shown by Evans, since a temperature regulator can ensure that the temperature of the compartment is the same for each batch of puffed food produced for consistent results, since a temperature regulator can prevent overheating that could burn the food product, and since a temperature regulator can prevent heating more than necessary, saving energy and reducing costs.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 20080233256 A1) in view of National Agricultural Library (How Does Popcorn Pop), Sugisawa (JP S59156273 A), Yi (CN 106261457 A), Cunningham (US 5740817 A), Johnson (US 20050142262 A1), Hughes (US 3189940 A), and Busch (Energy-efficient and reliable vacuum supply), and further in view of Lemme (US 20080131567 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Quinn, as modified above, is silent on the apparatus further comprising a screening device, situated between the compartment and the pressure device and configured to prevent passage of the profood item or portions thereof from the compartment to the pressure device.
Lemme teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0073) a food storage container which may be used for storing or marinating food under vacuum or pressure, wherein, when air is evacuated from the container by a vacuum pump, it travels from the container interior through a mesh screen and a filter, and, in doing so, spattered food particles, including drops from the marinade or other liquid in the container, are trapped by the mesh screen and filter, so that they do not damage the pump.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn, as modified above, to provide a screening device, situated between the compartment and the pressure device and configured to prevent passage of food from the compartment to the pressure device as taught by Lemme, since both are directed to devices for subjecting food products to vacuum, since providing a screening device, situated between the compartment and the pressure device and configured to prevent passage of food from the compartment to the pressure device is known in the art as shown by Lemme, since the screening device prevents food particles from damaging the pump (Lemme, Paragraph 0073), since the screening device can prevent loss of the profood product, and since the screening device can contain the food to the compartment, reducing the amount of equipment that will need to be cleaned.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20-33 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, these arguments have been made in view of amendments to the claims, and, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Quinn (US 20080233256 A1) in view of National Agricultural Library (How Does Popcorn Pop), Sugisawa (JP S59156273 A), Yi (CN 106261457 A), Cunningham (US 5740817 A), Johnson (US 20050142262 A1), Hughes (US 3189940 A), and Busch (Energy-efficient and reliable vacuum supply).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the technical problem solved by the claimed invention is how to obtain sufficiently rapid pressure reduction from atmospheric pressure to between 3-20 kPa in under one second to provide optimal conditions for shell rupturing and enhanced puffing of profood items, that the rapid pressure reduction as claimed, with the defined pressure reduction parameters, is crucial to ensure optimal conditions for shell rupturing and enhanced puffing of the profood interior foodstuff, and that the precise operational parameters that define a specific technical solution to the problem of achieving sufficiently rapid pressure reduction for optimal shell rupturing and enhanced puffing, enabling puffing of novel and unconventional profood items and providing a crispier and airier puffed product with reduced energy consumption and enhanced nutritional qualities, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the Applicant has demonstrated the alleged criticality of the specifically claimed parameters of reduction from atmospheric pressure to between 3-20 kPa in under one second. The Applicant cites the Specification, particularly Paragraphs 0045 and 0046, which compare the Applicant’s puffing process to conventional processes. However, these Paragraphs do not specifically point to the claimed parameters of reduction from atmospheric pressure to between 3-20 kPa in under one second as being responsible for the alleged benefits of the invention. Paragraph 0045 suggests that a “low spatial volume”, a feature that is not claimed, is responsible for the rapid pressure change (not indicated to have a specific duration). Paragraph 0046 indicates that the lower temperature for rupturing is beneficial. Thus, the Applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of the claimed pressure reduction range of 3-20 kPa and the claimed duration of less than one second. Furthermore, with regard to claim 20, and its dependent claims, directed to an apparatus, the Examiner notes that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Claims containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 II). Therefore, as the structure of the claimed apparatus is obvious in view of the prior art, the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed (e.g., sufficiently rapid pressure reduction from atmospheric pressure to between 3-20 kPa in under one second to provide optimal conditions for shell rupturing and enhanced puffing of profood items) will not render claimed invention non-obvious.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Quinn does not teach or suggest the technical problem solved by the claimed invention, namely achieving sufficiently rapid pressure reduction to enable puffing of novel and unconventional profood items, to produce crispier and airier puffed products, and to enable puffing at lower temperatures with reduced energy consumption and enhanced nutritional qualities, the Examiner notes that 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). Furthermore, the prior art, specifically the primary reference Quinn, discloses puffing at reduced pressure, and the relationship between pressure and temperature is well understood, where pressure and temperature are directly proportional. Consequently, the reduction in temperature resulting from the reduction in pressure as disclosed in the prior art would naturally occur as would be clearly recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner also notes that Sugisawa teaches that pressure reduction within one second advantageously helps to achieve the desired pressure reduction for swelling, and, similarly, Yi teaches reducing the pressure in the compartment to between 3-20 kPa by pumping air from the compartment within 10-100 milliseconds to achieve the desired pressure reduction for swelling.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the Examiner has not provided adequate reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these disparate references relating to different food processing applications with different technical requirements and objectives to arrive at the claimed invention, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner provides citations from both the prior art and general knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, for modifying Quinn in view of Sugisawa, the rejection states:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quinn to configure the apparatus to reduce pressure in the compartment within a second as taught by Sugisawa, since both are directed to devices for producing expanded starch based food products by reducing pressure with a vacuum pump, since reducing pressure in the compartment within a second is known in the art as shown by Sugisawa, since a shorter pressure reduction time would allow for faster popcorn production, providing convenience to the consumer, and improving profitability of production, and since when the food is placed under reduced pressure for a short period of time, the food expands (Sugisawa, Page 3).
Similar motivation is provided for the other cited prior art as shown above. The Applicant has not identified the way in which the motivation to combine the prior art is inadequate, and the Examiner maintains that sufficient motivation is provided by the prior art to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that none of the cited references recognize or address the technical problem solved by the claimed invention, namely enabling puffing of novel and unconventional profood items beyond commercially available products, producing crispier and airier puffed products that are more pleasing and highly satiating, and enabling puffing at lower temperatures with reduced energy consumption and enhanced nutritional qualities, the Examiner notes that many of the terms of the asserted technical problem such as “novel and unconventional profood items”, “crispier and airier puffed products that are more pleasing and highly satiating”, and “enhanced nutritional qualities” are unclear in definition and scope. Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that the prior art renders the claimed invention obvious, and therefore, the prior art addresses the technical problem solved by the claimed invention.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, claims 20, 28, and all dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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