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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2022.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 31-40) in the reply filed on 11/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is persuasive so that all claims 21-40 are examined in this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature(s):
“drainage valve” as recited in claims 27 and 37 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
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:
Claims 28 and 38 recite the limitation: “control[[ling]] at least one actuator of a nut processing system to adjust the nuts in the tank based on the amount of nuts parameter”.
Claims 30 and 40 recite the limitation “ control[[ling]] at least one actuator of a nut processing system to discard at least some of the nuts from the tank”.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “at least one actuator” , the specification does not clearly disclose the corresponding structure of the claimed “at least one actuator”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-30 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim 28 contain subject matter(s) “obtaining, by the at least one processor, a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of nuts parameter; and controlling at least one actuator of a nut processing system to adjust the nuts in the tank based on the amount of nuts parameter” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. No corresponding structure of the “at least one actuator” is disclosed in the specification. For examination purposes, the “at least one actuator” is construed as any device that is capable of “adjust[[ing]] the nuts in the tank based on the amount of nuts parameter”.
Claim 38 is rejected by the same reason as discussed above in claim 28. No corresponding structure of the “at least one actuator” is disclosed in the specification.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected by the same reason as discussed above in claim 28. No corresponding structure of the “at least one actuator” is disclosed in the specification. For examination purposes, the “at least one actuator” is construed as any device that is capable of “discard[[ing]] at least some of the nuts from the tank”.
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected by the virtue of the dependency upon claims 28 and 38.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 28- 30, 37 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “a drainage valve” in last line. It is unclear if the “a drainage valve” corresponds to “a drainage valve” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the same claim. For examination purposes, the limitation the limitation “a drainage valve” in last line is construed as the “a drainage valve” previously recited in lines 1-2.
Claim limitation ““obtaining, by the at least one processor, a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of nuts parameter; and controlling at least one actuator of a nut processing system to adjust the nuts in the tank based on the amount of nuts parameter” recited in claim 28 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Thus, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 38 is rejected by the same reason as discussed above in claim 28. No corresponding structure of the “at least one actuator” is disclosed in the specification.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected by the same reason as discussed above in claim 28. No corresponding structure of the “at least one actuator” is disclosed in the specification. For examination purposes, the “at least one actuator” is construed as any device that is capable of “discard[[ing]] at least some of the nuts from the tank”.
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected by the virtue of the dependency upon claims 28 and 38.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 26-27, 30-31, 36-37 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanfilippo (US 3249219 A) in view of Rosalia (US 20170150843 A1), Fukumori US 20160007638 A1) and Foroutanaliabad (US 20060182858 A1)
Regarding claim 21, Sanfilippo discloses
A method (see title) comprising: controlling a vacuum pump (16, see fig.1) to create a vacuum inside a tank (12, see fig.1 ) that is sealed closed ( see claim 1, col.8, lines 30-35: “a sealed tank adapted to contain a body of water” and col. 3 lines 39 and 56-58: “The vacuum pump 16 is driven by a motor 56”, “the pump maintains a vacuum pressure of from twenty to twenty-five inches of mercury within the tank”), the sealed tank (12) containing water and nuts (12, see fig.1 and see claim 1, col.8, lines 30-35: “a sealed tank adapted to contain a body of water, … continuously introducing a flow of the mixture of nutmeat and shell fragments into said tank”).
Sanfilippo discloses the nuts in the tank 12 having the vacuum (see col. 3 lines 39 and 56-58), but is silent on
controlling, by at least one processor, a vacuum pump to create a vacuum inside a tank,
tempering the nuts in the tank having the vacuum; and
removing the vacuum from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts.
Rosalia discloses a food preparation device or system which utilizes pre-packaged food containers to prepare a food item for consumption, comprising:
controlling, by at least one processor, a vacuum pump to create a vacuum inside a tank (See para.0094: “the processor 210 can select whether the vacuum pump 166 is used to draw the food item out of the container 10”),
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Sanfilippo to incorporate the at least one processor as taught by Rosalia so as the processor controls the vacuum pump to create the vacuum inside the tank. The processor can ensure that the vacuum pump operates reliably and maintains the quality of the vacuum process.
Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except
tempering the nuts in the tank having the vacuum; and
removing the vacuum from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts.
Fukumori discloses a manufacturing method of instant rice which may be restored to edible rice simply by adding hot water, comprising:
tempering the nuts (nuts of Sanfilippo) in the tank (tank 12 of Sanfilippo having the vacuum) having the vacuum (See para.0063 and abstract: “tempering step for making moisture content of the hydrated raw material rice uniform”. Thus, by applying the step of “tempering”, in the modification of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia/Fukumor, the nuts of Sanfilippo are tempered in the tank of Sanfilippo having the vacuum).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia to apply the step of “tempering” of Fukumori so as the method comprises the step of “tempering the nuts in the tank having the vacuum” as claimed, for the purpose of making moisture content of the hydrated nuts uniform (See abstract: “a tempering step for making moisture content of the hydrated raw material rice uniform”).
Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia and Fukumori discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except removing the vacuum from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts.
Foroutanaliabad discloses methods for artificially splitting nuts in a manner that ensures that the nuts split in the same manner as naturally split nuts, comprising:
removing the vacuum (“the vacuum is removed”, see para.0017) from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts (tempered nut of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia and Fukumori. See para.0017: “once the desired level of air has been removed from inside the nuts, the vacuum is removed, and water is sucked back into the nuts to replace the expelled air”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia and Fukumori to apply the teachings “removing the vacuum” of Foroutanaliabad so as the modified method comprises the step of “removing the vacuum from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts”. Doing so provides extremely simple, scalable, efficient and rapid method of splitting the nuts in the same manner as naturally split nuts (see para.0014 of Foroutanaliabad).
Regarding claim 26, Sanfilippo further discloses measuring, by at least one sensor (52, see fig.1), a value of the water in the tank (see col.3, lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 27, Sanfilippo further discloses draining at least some of the water from the tank (12) through a drainage outlet (102, see fig.1) of the tank (12) by opening a drainage valve (104, see fig.1) among at least one valve (104 and 22, see fig.1) to adjust the water in the tank (See col.6 lines 20-22: “valve element 104 initially removes some water from the tank 12 in addition to shell fragments”).
Regarding claim 30, Sanfilippo further discloses controlling at least one actuator (104, see fig.1) of a nut processing system (combo 22 and 104, see fig.1) to discard at least some of the nuts from the tank (12, see fig.1 and col. 6 lines 20-22: “rotation of the valve element 104 initially removes some water from the tank 12 in addition to shell fragments”).
Regarding claim 31, Sanfilippo discloses
A system (10, see fig.1) comprising:
a tank (12, see fig.1) configured to contain water (see col.2 line 40: “…tank 12 adapted to contain a quantity of water…”) and nuts (col.2 lines 50-51: “A mixture of nutmeat and shell is introduced into the tank through a charging valve 20”) and to seal closed (see claim 1, col.8, lines 30-35: “a sealed tank adapted to contain a body of water, … continuously introducing a flow of the mixture of nutmeat and shell fragments into said tank”);
a vacuum pump (16, see fig.1) coupled to the tank (12, see fig.1);
while the sealed tank (12, see fig.1) contains the water and the nuts (see claim 1, col.8, lines 30-35: “a sealed tank adapted to contain a body of water, … continuously introducing a flow of the mixture of nutmeat and shell fragments into said tank”).
Sanfilippo discloses the nuts in the tank 12 having the vacuum (see col. 3 lines 39 and 56-58) and the motor 56 coupled to the vacuum pump 16 and configured to: control the vacuum pump 16 to create a vacuum inside the tank 12 that is sealed closed (see claim 1, col.8, lines 30-35: “a sealed tank adapted to contain a body of water…”, col. 3 lines 39 and 56-58: “The vacuum pump 16 is driven by a motor 56”, “the pump maintains a vacuum pressure of from twenty to twenty-five inches of mercury within the tank”, but is silent on
at least one processor operably coupled to the vacuum pump and configured to:
control the vacuum pump to create a vacuum inside the tank that is sealed closed,
temper the nuts in the tank having the vacuum; and
remove the vacuum from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts.
Rosalia discloses a food preparation device or system which utilizes pre-packaged food containers to prepare a food item for consumption, comprising:
at least one processor operably coupled to the vacuum pump (See para.0094: “the processor 210 can select whether the vacuum pump 166 is used …”),and configured to:
control the vacuum pump (see para.0094) to create a vacuum inside the tank that is sealed closed (sealed tank of Sanfilippo).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Sanfilippo to add the processor as taught by Rosalia so as the “processor operably coupled to the vacuum pump and configured to: control the vacuum pump to create a vacuum inside the tank that is sealed closed”. The processor can ensure that the vacuum pump operates reliably and maintain the quality of the vacuum process.
Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except
temper the nuts in the tank having the vacuum; and
remove the vacuum from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts.
Fukumori discloses a manufacturing method of instant rice which may be restored to edible rice simply by adding hot water, comprising:
temper the nuts (nuts of Sanfilippo) in the tank (tank 12 of Sanfilippo having the vacuum) having the vacuum (See para.0063 and abstract: “tempering step for making moisture content of the hydrated raw material rice uniform”. Thus, by applying the step of “tempering”, in the modification of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia/Fukumor, the nuts of Sanfilippo are tempered in the tank of Sanfilippo having the vacuum).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the processor of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia to apply the step of “temper” of Fukumori so as the modified processor is configured to “temper the nuts in the tank having the vacuum” as claimed, for the purpose of making moisture content of the hydrated nuts uniform (See abstract: “a tempering step for making moisture content of the hydrated raw material rice uniform”).
Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia and Fukumori discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except remove the vacuum from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts.
Foroutanaliabad discloses methods for artificially splitting nuts in a manner that ensures that the nuts split in the same manner as naturally split nuts, comprising:
remove the vacuum (“the vacuum is removed”, see para.0017) from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts (tempered nut of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia and Fukumori. See para.0017: “once the desired level of air has been removed from inside the nuts, the vacuum is removed, and water is sucked back into the nuts to replace the expelled air”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the processor of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia and Fukumori to apply the teachings “remove the vacuum” of Foroutanaliabad so as the modified processor is configured to “remove the vacuum from the tank containing the water and the tempered nuts”. Doing so provides extremely simple, scalable, efficient and rapid method of splitting the nuts in the same manner as naturally split nuts (see para.0014 of Foroutanaliabad).
Regarding claim 36, Sanfilippo further discloses at least one sensor (52, see fig.1) configured to measure a value of the water in the tank (see col.3, lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 37, Sanfilippo further discloses at least one valve (104 and 22, see fig.1) including a drainage valve (104) configured to couple to a drainage outlet of the tank (102, see fig.1), wherein: the tank (12) comprises the drainage outlet (102, see fig.1); and the at least one processor is further configured to: drain at least some of the water from the tank through the drainage outlet (102) of the tank by opening a drainage valve (104) to adjust the water in the tank (See col.6 lines 20-22: “valve element 104 initially removes some water from the tank 12 in addition to shell fragments”). .
Regarding claim 40, Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia further discloses the at least one processor (processor of Rosalia and motor of Sanfilippo, see col. 5 last line of Sanfilippo) is further configured to: control at least one actuator (104, see fig.1 of Sanfilippo) of a nut processing system (combo 22 and 104, see fig.1 of Sanfilippo) to discard at least some of the nuts from the tank (12, see fig.1 and col. 6 lines 20-22 of Sanfilippo: “rotation of the valve element 104 initially removes some water from the tank 12 in addition to shell fragments”).
Claims 22 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad as applied to claims 21 and 31 and further in view of Rosenbrock (US 5197375 A)
Regarding claim 22, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except obtaining, by the at least one processor, a set of tempering parameters that includes a time specified, wherein tempering the nuts in the tank having the vacuum comprises: tempering, based on the time specified, the nuts in the tank having the vacuum.
Rosenbrock discloses a conveyor oven control, comprising:
obtaining, by the at least one processor, a set of tempering parameters that includes a time specified (See abstract: “the controller provides facilities for user programming of sets of oven parameters… Each set of parameters includes the total cook time for the product”), tempering the nuts in the tank having the vacuum (tempering the nuts in the tank having the vacuum in the modification Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad) comprises: tempering, based on the time specified (time spectified as taught by Rosenbrock ), the nuts in the tank having the vacuum (nuts in the tank having the vacuum in the modification Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad and see claim 17 of Rosenbrock: “ means responsive to…said desired cooking time selection for adjusting the amount of said motive energy supplied to said product transport means to produce a cooking time closely approximating said desired cooking time selection” ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad to use the teachings of Rosenbrock so as so as the method comprises the step(s) of “obtaining, by the at least one processor, a set of tempering parameters that includes a time specified, wherein tempering the nuts in the tank having the vacuum comprises: tempering, based on the time specified, the nuts in the tank having the vacuum” as claimed. Doing so optimizes the efficiency of breaking shells by preventing under-tempering (hard to break) or over-tempering (damaged, mushy kernel).
Regarding claim 32, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a set of tempering parameters that includes a time specified; and temper the nuts in the tank having the vacuum (tempering the nuts in the tank having the vacuum in the modification Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad) by: tempering, based on the time specified, the nuts in the tank having the vacuum.
Rosenbrock discloses a conveyor oven control, comprising:
the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a set of tempering parameters that includes a time specified (See abstract: “the controller provides facilities for user programming of sets of oven parameters… Each set of parameters includes the total cook time for the product”); and temper the nuts in the tank having the vacuum by: tempering, based on the time specified, the nuts in the tank having the vacuum.
(nuts in the tank having the vacuum in the modification Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad and see claim 17 of Rosenbrock: “ means responsive to…said desired cooking time selection for adjusting the amount of said motive energy supplied to said product transport means to produce a cooking time closely approximating said desired cooking time selection” ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad to use the teachings of Rosenbrock so as “the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a set of tempering parameters that includes a time specified; and temper the nuts in the tank having the vacuum by: tempering, based on the time specified, the nuts in the tank having the vacuum” as claimed. Doing so optimizes the efficiency of breaking shells by preventing under-tempering (hard to break) or over-tempering (damaged, mushy kernel).
Claims 23 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad/ Rosenbrock as applied to claims 22 and 32 and further in view of
Malinsky (US 20110287138 A1)
Regarding claim 23, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 22, except the time specified includes at least one of: how long the nuts are in an interior of the tank; how long the nuts have been submerged in the water in the tank; a dwell time of how long the nuts submerged in the water are subjected to a vacuum pressure of the vacuum created by the vacuum pump; or how long the nuts are submerged in the water at a temperature within a specified range of temperatures.
Malinsky discloses system and method for Freeze drying food articles, comprising:
wherein the time specified includes how long (12-24 hours) the nuts have been submerged in the water in the tank (See para.0023: “In step 802 the nuts are soaked in a soaking solution, such as water. In an embodiment, the soaking solution is spring water. In an embodiment, the nuts are soaked for 12-24 hours at 68.degree. F. to 77.degree. F.”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the time specified in the modification Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad/ Rosenbrock to include “how long the nuts have been submerged in the water in the tank” as claimed. Doing so optimizes the efficiency of breaking shells by preventing under-tempering (hard to break) or over-tempering (damaged, mushy kernel).
Regarding claim 33, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 32, except the time specified includes at least one of: how long the nuts are in an interior of the tank; how long the nuts have been submerged in the water in the tank; a dwell time of how long the nuts submerged in the water are subjected to a vacuum pressure of the vacuum created by the vacuum pump; or how long the nuts are submerged in the water at a temperature within a specified range of temperatures.
Malinsky discloses system and method for freeze drying food articles, comprising:
wherein the time specified includes how long (12-24 hours) the nuts have been submerged in the water in the tank (See para.0023: “In step 802 the nuts are soaked in a soaking solution, such as water. In an embodiment, the soaking solution is spring water. In an embodiment, the nuts are soaked for 12-24 hours at 68.degree. F. to 77.degree. F.”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the time specified in the modification Sanfilippo in view of in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad/ Rosenbrock to include “how long the nuts have been submerged in the water in the tank” as claimed. Doing so optimizes the efficiency of breaking shells by preventing under-tempering (hard to break) or over-tempering (damaged, mushy kernel).
Claims 24-25 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad as applied to claims 21 and 31 and further in view of Hoehne (US 20050253019 A1)
Regarding claim 24, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Sanfilippo discloses at least one valve (50) to adjust the water in the tank (see col.3, lines 18-20: “The flow of water through the manifold pipe is regulated by means of a valve 50 which, in turn, is controlled by a water level sensing device 52”), except obtaining, by the at least one processor, a set of tempering parameters; and controlling at least one valve to adjust the water in the tank based on a water parameter among the set of tempering parameters.
Hoehne discloses Method and Apparatus for Tempering Gaseous And/or Liquid Media, comprising:
obtaining, by the at least one processor (12, see fig.1), a set of tempering parameters (see para.0057: “ temperature and/or quantity instructions of a user to set the temperature and/or quantity of fluid to be delivered…”); and controlling at least one valve to adjust the water in the tank based on a water parameter among the set of tempering parameters (see para.0057: “solely by a corresponding operation of the valves 10, 26, 30, the tempering arrangements 15, 16, 20, 22, … by means of the control and regulating arrangement 12, according to corresponding temperature and/or quantity instructions of a user to set the temperature and/or quantity of fluid to be delivered at the fluid outlet.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad to include the teachings of Hoehne so as the method comprises the steps of “obtaining, by the at least one processor, a set of tempering parameters; and controlling at least one valve to adjust the water in the tank based on a water parameter among the set of tempering parameters”. Doing so allows to temper the water and nuts automatically and effectively in order to improve the efficiency of breaking shells.
Regarding claim 25, Sanfilippo in view of Hoehne further discloses controlling the at least one valve (50 of Sanfilippo and valves of Hoehne) to adjust the water in the tank (12, see fig.1) until a measured value of the water in the tank is within a range defined by the water parameter (see col.10, lines 5-7: “means for maintaining the level of water within said tank within a given range”), wherein controlling at least one valve (50) to adjust the water in the tank comprises:
adding water into the tank by opening a liquid inlet valve among the at least one valve (see col.3, lines 18-20: “The flow of water through the manifold pipe is regulated by means of a valve 50 which, in turn, is controlled by a water level sensing device 52”).
Regarding claim 34, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Sanfilippo discloses at least one valve (50) to adjust the water in the tank (see col.3, lines 18-20: “The flow of water through the manifold pipe is regulated by means of a valve 50 which, in turn, is controlled by a water level sensing device 52”), except the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a set of tempering parameters; and control at least one valve to adjust the water in the tank based on a water parameter among the set of tempering parameters.
Hoehne discloses Method and Apparatus for Tempering Gaseous And/or Liquid Media, comprising:
the at least one processor (12, see fig.1) is further configured to: obtain a set of tempering parameters (see para.0057: “ temperature and/or quantity instructions of a user to set the temperature and/or quantity of fluid to be delivered…”); and control at least one valve to adjust the water in the tank based on a water parameter ( “temperature and/or quantity instructions of a user to set the temperature and/or quantity of fluid”, see para.0057) among the set of tempering parameters (see para.0057: “solely by a corresponding operation of the valves 10, 26, 30, the tempering arrangements 15, 16, 20, 22, … by means of the control and regulating arrangement 12, according to corresponding temperature and/or quantity instructions of a user to set the temperature and/or quantity of fluid to be delivered at the fluid outlet.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the processor of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad to include the teachings of Hoehne so as the processor “configured to: obtain a set of tempering parameters; and control at least one valve to adjust the water in the tank based on a water parameter among the set of tempering parameters” as claimed. Doing so allows to temper the water and nuts automatically and effectively in order to improve the efficiency of breaking shells.
Regarding claim 35, Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad/ Hoehne further discloses the at least one valve (50 of Sanfilippo and valves of Hoehne) includes a liquid inlet valve (50 of Sanfilippo) configured to couple to at least one inlet of the tank (see inlet of the tank in annotated fig.1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
587
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the at least one processor (processor of Rosalia and item(s)52, 56 of Sanfilippo) is further configured to: control the at least one valve (50 of Sanfilippo) ) to adjust the water in the tank (12 of Sanfilippo) ) until a measured value of the water in the tank is within a range defined by the water parameter (see col.10, lines 5-7: “means for maintaining the level of water within said tank within a given range”) by adding water into the tank by opening the liquid inlet valve (see col.3, lines 18-20 of Sanfilippo: “The flow of water through the manifold pipe is regulated by means of a valve 50 which, in turn, is controlled by a water level sensing device 52”).
Claims 28-29 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad as applied to claims 21 and 31 and further in view of Cutler (US 3574343 A)
Regarding claim 28, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except obtaining, by the at least one processor, a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of nuts parameter; and controlling at least one actuator of a nut processing system to adjust the nuts in the tank based on the amount of nuts parameter.
Cutler discloses a mixing system, comprising:
obtaining, by the at least one processor (84, see fig.1), a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of parameter (see col.3, lines 31-33: “Timer control 84 is connected by conductor 56 to sensor 58. Sensor 58 continuously monitors the amount of liquid within supply vat 14.” Thus, in the combination of Sanfilippo Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad, the processor obtains a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of nuts measured by the weight sensor 58 of Cutler; and controlling at least one actuator (24, see fig.1) of a processing system (10, see fig.1) to adjust the liquid in the tank (14) based on the amount of nuts parameter (see col.4 lines 28-32: “ if the liquid within supply vat 14 falls below a predetermined level, selector 24 is actuated to divert the flow of pasteurized liquid to conduit 54 to replenish the supply within supply vat 14”. Thus, in the combination of Sanfilippo with Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad, the processor controls at least one actuator 24 to adjust the nuts based on the measured weight by the sensor 58).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad to include the teachings of Cutler so as the method comprises “obtaining, by the at least one processor, a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of nuts parameter; and controlling at least one actuator of a nut processing system to adjust the nuts in the tank based on the amount of nuts parameter” as claimed. Doing so allows to automatically control the number of nuts in a cracking device which ensures high-efficiency, consistent, and gentle processing by preventing overloading. It also optimizes production and reduces sheller downtime.
Regarding claim 29, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except determining whether a measured value of the nuts in the tank satisfies a nuts condition defined by the amount of nuts parameter; and controlling the at least one actuator until the measured value of the nuts in the tank is within a range defined by the amount of nuts parameter, by at least one of: in response to a determination that the nuts condition is not satisfied based on a determination that the measured value of the nuts is less than the amount of nuts parameter, sending a first signal that is associated with adding nuts into the tank to control the at least one actuator; or in response to a determination that the nuts condition is satisfied, sending a second signal that is associated with stopping nuts from being added into the tank to control the at least one actuator.
Cutler further discloses determining whether a measured value (amount measured by the sensor 58, see col. 3lines 31-33: “sensor 58 continuously monitors the amount of liquid within supply vat 14”) of the water in the tank (14) satisfies a condition (the liquid within supply vat 14 exceeds the minimum acceptable level) defined by the amount of parameter (See col.4 lines 28-35: “if the liquid within supply vat 14 falls below a predetermined level, selector 24 is actuated to divert the flow of pasteurized liquid to conduit 54 to replenish the supply within supply vat 14. This halts the timing mechanism within timer control 84. When the liquid within supply vat 14 exceeds the minimum acceptable level, timer control 84 resumes the control cycle at the point at which the interruption took place”) ; and
controlling the at least one actuator (24) until the measured value of the nuts in the tank is within a range (equal to the predetermined level and above) defined by the amount of parameter (amount measured by sensor 58), by:
in response to a determination that the condition (condition in which the liquid within supply vat 14 exceeds the minimum acceptable level) is not satisfied (“the liquid within supply vat 14 falls below a predetermined level”, see col.4 lines 28-35) based on a determination that the measured value of the water is less than the amount of parameter (predetermined level), sending a first signal that is associated with adding water into the tank (14) to control the at least one actuator (24, see fig.1 and col.4 lines 28-35: “if the liquid within supply vat 14 falls below a predetermined level, selector 24 is actuated to divert the flow of pasteurized liquid to conduit 54 to replenish the supply within supply vat 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Sanfilippo in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad to include the teachings of Cutler so as the method comprises “determining whether a measured value of the nuts in the tank satisfies a nuts condition defined by the amount of nuts parameter; and controlling the at least one actuator until the measured value of the nuts in the tank is within a range defined by the amount of nuts parameter, by in response to a determination that the nuts condition is not satisfied based on a determination that the measured value of the nuts is less than the amount of nuts parameter, sending a first signal that is associated with adding nuts into the tank to control the at least one actuator”. Doing so allows to automatically control the number of nuts in a cracking device which ensures high-efficiency, consistent, and gentle processing by preventing overloading. It also optimizes production and reduces sheller downtime.
Regarding claim 38, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of nuts parameter; and control at least one actuator of a nut processing system to adjust the nuts in the tank based on the amount of nuts parameter.
Cutler discloses a mixing system, comprising:
the at least one processor (84, see fig.1) is further configured to: obtain a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of parameter (see col.3, lines 31-33: “Timer control 84 is connected by conductor 56 to sensor 58. Sensor 58 continuously monitors the amount of liquid within supply vat 14.” Thus, in the combination of Sanfilippo with Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad/ Cutler, the processor obtains a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of nuts measured by the weight sensor 58 of Cutler); and control at least one actuator (24, see fig.1) of a processing system (10, see fig.1) to adjust the liquid in the tank (14) based on the amount of parameter (see col.4 lines 28-32: “ if the liquid within supply vat 14 falls below a predetermined level, selector 24 is actuated to divert the flow of pasteurized liquid to conduit 54 to replenish the supply within supply vat 14”. Thus, in the combination of Sanfilippo with Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad / Cutler, the processor controls at least one actuator 24 to adjust the nuts based on the measured weight by the sensor 58).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Sanfilippo in view of in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad to include the processor and teachings of Cutler so as the system comprises “the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a set of tempering parameters that includes an amount of nuts parameter; and control at least one actuator of a nut processing system to adjust the nuts in the tank based on the amount of nuts parameter. ”. Doing so allows to automatically control the number of nuts in a cracking device which ensures high-efficiency, consistent, and gentle processing by preventing overloading. It also optimizes production and reduces sheller downtime.
Regarding claim 39, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the at least one processor is further configured to: determine whether a measured value of the nuts in the tank satisfies a nuts condition defined by the amount of nuts parameter; and control the at least one actuator until the measured value of the nuts in the tank is within a range defined by the amount of nuts parameter, by at least one of:in response to a determination that the nuts condition is not satisfied based on a determination that the measured value of the nuts is less than the amount of nuts parameter, sending a first signal that is associated with adding nuts into the tank to control the at least one actuator; or in response to a determination that the nuts condition is satisfied, sending a second signal that is associated with stopping nuts from being added into the tank to control the at least one actuator.
Cutler further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to: determine whether a measured value (amount measured by the sensor 58, see col. 3lines 31-33: “sensor 58 continuously monitors the amount of liquid within supply vat 14”) of the water in the tank (14) satisfies a condition (the liquid within supply vat 14 exceeds the minimum acceptable level) defined by the amount of parameter (See col.4 lines 28-35: “if the liquid within supply vat 14 falls below a predetermined level, selector 24 is actuated to divert the flow of pasteurized liquid to conduit 54 to replenish the supply within supply vat 14. This halts the timing mechanism within timer control 84. When the liquid within supply vat 14 exceeds the minimum acceptable level, timer control 84 resumes the control cycle at the point at which the interruption took place”) ; and
control the at least one actuator (24) until the measured value of the nuts in the tank is within a range (equal to the predetermined level and above) defined by the amount of parameter (amount measured by sensor 58), by:
in response to a determination that the condition (condition in which the liquid within supply vat 14 exceeds the minimum acceptable level) is not satisfied (“the liquid within supply vat 14 falls below a predetermined level”, see col.4 lines 28-35) based on a determination that the measured value of the water is less than the amount of parameter (predetermined level), sending a first signal that is associated with adding water into the tank (14) to control the at least one actuator (24, see fig.1 and col.4 lines 28-35: “if the liquid within supply vat 14 falls below a predetermined level, selector 24 is actuated to divert the flow of pasteurized liquid to conduit 54 to replenish the supply within supply vat 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Sanfilippo in view of in view of Rosalia / Fukumori / Foroutanaliabad to include the processor and teachings of Cutler so as the system comprises “the at least one processor is further configured to: determine whether a measured value of the nuts in the tank satisfies a nuts condition defined by the amount of nuts parameter; and control the at least one actuator until the measured value of the nuts in the tank is within a range defined by the amount of nuts parameter, by: in response to a determination that the nuts condition is not satisfied based on a determination that the measured value of the nuts is less than the amount of nuts parameter, sending a first signal that is associated with adding nuts into the tank to control the at least one actuator”. Doing so allows to automatically control the number of nuts in a cracking device which ensures high-efficiency, consistent, and gentle processing by preventing overloading. It also optimizes production and reduces sheller downtime.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 4476148 A discloses a Method of Producing a Slurry from Crop Products. The apparatus includes a feed pump for extruding ground nuts onto a screen in a primary mixing chamber into which steam and water are fed selectively to form the slurry. A secondary mixing chamber connects to the primary chamber and includes a rotary pump that both blends the slurry and advances it towards a vacuum chamber where the slurry is rapidly cooled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761