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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 06/06/2025.
Claims 1-24 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Further recognition:
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
The objections to the claims have been reconsidered and the restated objections have not been found persuasive.
The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in in light of the amendments.The rejections pursuant to 112(f) have been reconsidered and the restated objections have not been found persuasive.
The rejections pursuant to 112(a) have been reconsidered and the restated objections have not been found persuasive.
The rejections pursuant to 112(b) have been reconsidered and the restated objections have not been found persuasive.
Claim objections
Claims 1-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, 13 and 18, the claim recites “… HMI screen.”
The claim should be amended to recite - - Human Machine Interface (HMI) - - for clarity.
Regarding claim 9, in (a) the claim recites “…vacuum control valve is open and inflow air flow valve is closed, chamber pressure.”
The claim should be amended to recite - - the vacuum control valve is open and the inflow air control valve is closed, the food chamber pressure - - for clarity.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19-24 are objected to based on dependency from an objected to claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Refrigeration unit in at least claims 1, 13, and 18
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 1-24 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(s) contains subject matter 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.
Regarding Claim 1, 13 and 18, the recitation of “…refrigeration unit,” is not described in the disclosure such that one skilled in the art would recognize applicant’s possession of the claimed subject matter. In particular, the structure of the recited “…refrigeration unit,” is not described. In claims 1, 13, and 18 it is disclosed that the “refrigeration unit” is used to cool the cold trap. The use of the term “unit” is not adequate structure for performing the recited function. Again, the specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function and thus does not reasonably demonstrate that the Applicant had full possession of the metes and bounds of the invention.
Therefore, the claims fail the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claims 2-12, 14-17 and 19-24 are rejected to based on dependency from an objected to claim.
§ 112 2nd statement
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 1-24 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 1, 13 and 18, the claim limitation “refrigeration unit” 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 of a refrigeration unit.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-12, 14-17 and 19-24 are rejected to based on dependency from an objected to claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 13-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradshaw (US4331690A) in view of Hunt (US3049913).
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 18, Bradshaw teaches, an apparatus for cooling [col. 1; lines 15-16], and comprising:
a plurality of food chamber modules [30; fig 2], each comprising:
a food chamber [at least the inside portion of part# 30;] being able to work in extremely low-pressure conditions [column 9; lines 3 -16];
an inflow air control valve [62] arranged to regulate the added clean air flows and serve as a vent valve to allow the food chamber to return to atmospheric pressure [col. 8; lines 12-24];
and an instrument panel [at least 68; fig. 2];
a utility module being connected to each food chamber, comprising:
a vacuum pump [48] arranged to pump air out of the food chamber to reach extremely low-pressure conditions [column 8; lines 12-24];
a cold trap [72] arranged to condense water vapor from the food chamber back to liquid form [col 10 line 56-col 11 line 43],
a refrigeration unit [70] being used to cool the cold trap [col 10 line 56-col 11 line 43],
a vacuum control valve [60] arranged to regulate the exhaust air flow [col 8 lines 14-24];
a vacuum air connection tube [56] that connects the cold trap to each food chamber and allows air to pass through [col 8, lines 12-24];
a control and monitoring module [66] for each food chamber [30], comprising an HMI screen that allows the user to operate the apparatus [col 8, lines 12-24];
Bradshaw does not teach an electrical panel arranged to receive electric power and supply the power to the apparatus; and
a conduit that houses the electrical and signal wires in between the food chamber module and utility module.
However, Hunt teaches an evacuated cooling chamber [fig 1 which corresponds to Bradshaw’s food chambers] having an electrical panel [at connection box 90] arranged to receive electric power and supply the power to the apparatus; and
a conduit [92] that houses the electrical and signal wires in between a chamber module [12] and utility module [col 4 lines 50-73; see fig 6] for the obvious advantage of providing electrical power to the apparatus.
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bradshaw to have an electrical panel arranged to receive electric power and supply the power to the apparatus; and a conduit that houses the electrical and signal wires in between the food chamber module and utility module in view of the teachings of Hunt in order to provide electrical power to the apparatus.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Bradshaw, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bradshaw teaches wherein the extremely low-pressure conditions have chamber pressure being less than or equal to about 0.1 ATM or 10 kPa [col. 9; lines 8-16].
Claim(s) 3, 12, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradshaw (US4331690A) and Hunt (US3049913) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Espinosa (US2014/0284239).
Regarding Claims 3, 15 and 19, Bradshaw, as modified, teaches the invention above and Bradshaw teaches wherein the control and monitoring module a computer and control device that enables chamber pressure control for the apparatus [col 10, lines 56-68].
Bradshaw does not teach a system power switch to turn on or off the apparatus; and a plurality of system status lights to indicate the working or abnormal status of the apparatus.
However, Espinosa teaches a vacuum control system that cools a compartment [0112-0113] having a system power switch to turn on or off the apparatus [0106; fig 4]; and a plurality of system status lights to indicate the working or abnormal status of the apparatus [0107] for the obvious advantage of communicating system parameters to the user.
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bradshaw to have a system power switch to turn on or off the apparatus; and a plurality of system status lights to indicate the working or abnormal status of the apparatus in view of the teachings of Espinosa in order to communicate system parameters to the user.
Regarding Claim 12, Bradshaw, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 above and Espinosa teaches where the computer and control device is implemented with an industrial personal computer (IPC), or a programmable logic controller (PLC), or a programmable automation controller (PAC), or a specially designed control device, or a combination thereof [0111].
Claim(s) 4-5, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradshaw (US4331690A) and Hunt (US3049913) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Sato (US4612200).
Regarding Claims 4, 16 and 20, Bradshaw, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bradshaw teaches wherein each food chamber module further comprises:
a plurality of temperature sensors [302] whose probes can be inserted into food samples to measure food temperatures [col.9; lines 33-37];
a pressure sensor [304] being used to measure the pressure of the food chamber [col. 9; lines 41-44];
one or two food chamber doors [116];
a rolling trolley [20] that can hold multiple food pans, fruit crates, or vegetable cartons [col. 7; lines 12-25]. Bradshaw does not teach an inline air filter to filter an inflow of air.
However, Sato teaches an apparatus for producing cooling food [col 1 lines 10-21] having an inline air filter [11] to filter the inflow air [col 9, lines 10-22] for the obvious advantage of providing clean air to the system.
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bradshaw to have an inline air filter to filter the inflow air in view of the teachings of Sato in order to provide clean air to the system.
Regarding Claim 5, Bradshaw, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Bradshaw teaches wherein the chamber door further comprises:
a window [36] to allow the user to view the conditions inside the chamber [col. 7; lines 29-31];
and a door handle and swivel [34] to lock the food chamber for safe operations [col. 7; lines 29-31].
Claim(s) 6, 10-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradshaw (US4331690A) and Hunt (US3049913) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Babler et al. (CH708608A2).
Regarding Claim 6 and 17, Bradshaw, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bradshaw teaches, comprising a 2-Input-1-Output (2x1) pressure control system for each of the food chamber module to control the food chamber pressure, further comprising: 1-input-2-output (1x2) pressure controller [col. 8-9; lines 66-7];
a 2-input-1-output (2x1) pressure system[col. 10-11; lines 56-7];
an actuator I being the vacuum control valve [62; col. 8; lines 14-16] ;
an actuator 2 being the inflow air control valve 60; col. 8; lines 14-16];
Bradshaw does not explicitly teach, a pressure setpoint trajectory calculation mechanism.
However, Babler teaches a pressure setpoint trajectory calculation mechanism [0016; lines 172-175].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Bradshaw teaching with Babler by combining a pressure setpoint trajectory calculation mechanism where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures the invention with each stored image is assigned a cooling
program and reproducible vacuum processes [0014].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination teaches the invention of claim 6 above and Babler teaches, the pressure setpoint trajectory calculation mechanism [0016-0017].
Babler does not explicitly teach, in which the pressure setpoint trajectory calculation mechanism is generated in the following form for cooling Type A Foods:
PNG
media_image1.png
48
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or an equivalent thereof, in which Pi(0)>0 is the initial chamber pressure, and a>0, C>0 are pre-determined constants being used in cooling recipes.
However, these equations are well known techniques in the art and it is not unreasonable that these equations would be used and not explicitly disclosed. As Babler does disclose: “
In particular, the pressure curve can be characterized by a pressure curve which comprises at least one of the following curve profiles: a continuous decrease, a sawtooth shape, a step shape or a pressure curve which is constant at least in sections.
Continuous decrease describes a pressure curve in which the pressure decreases with increasing time” [0017].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination the invention of claim 6 above and Babler teaches, the pressure setpoint trajectory calculation mechanism [0016-0017].
Babler does not explicitly teach, in which the pressure setpoint trajectory calculation mechanism is generated in the following form so the food chamber pressure is controlled to avoid liquid splash events for food flavor infusion and for cooling Type B Foods:
PNG
media_image2.png
161
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or an equivalent thereof, in which Pi(0)>0 is the initial chamber pressure, and a>0, b>0, d>0, C1>0, C2>0, C3>0 are pre-determined constants being used in cooling recipes.
However, these equations are well known techniques in the art and it is not unreasonable that these equations would be used and not explicitly disclosed. As Babler does disclose: “
In particular, the pressure curve can be characterized by a pressure curve which comprises at least one of the following curve profiles: a continuous decrease, a sawtooth shape, a step shape or a pressure curve which is constant at least in sections.
Continuous decrease describes a pressure curve in which the pressure decreases with increasing time” [0017].
Claim(s) 7- 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradshaw (US4331690A), Hunt (US3049913) and Babler et al. (CH708608A2) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Cheng (US7142626B2).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination teaches the invention of claim 6 above and Bradshaw teaches, actuator 1 [62] and 2 [60].
Whereas Bradshaw does not explicitly teach wherein the 1-input-2-output (1x2) pressure controller is a Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) controller, a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller, a Proportional-Integral (PI) controller, or a Proportional controller (P), comprising a split-range setter to produce control output 1 and 2 to manipulate actuator 1 and 2.
However, Cheng teaches, combined split-range setter into a plurality of ranges of signals so that the SISO controller is converted to a single-input-multi-output (SIMO) automatic controller based on certain criteria [Abstract], and wherein the 1-input-2-output (1x2) pressure controller is a Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) controller[col. 3; line 24], a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller, a Proportional-Integral (PI) controller, or a Proportional controller (P), comprising a split-range setter to produce control output 1 and 2 to manipulate actuator 1 and 2 [col. 3; lines 34-36 corresponding to 60 and 62 of Bradshaw].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Bradshaw teaching with Cheng by combining wherein the 1-input-2-output (1x2) pressure controller is a Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) controller, a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller, a Proportional-Integral (PI) controller, or a Proportional controller (P), comprising a split-range setter to produce control output 1 and 2 to manipulate actuator 1 and 2where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures the invention of claim six with scalability, safety and other limit control actions [col. 6; lines 34-40].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination teaches the invention of claim 7 above and Cheng teaches, in which the split-range setter produces controller outputs of the form:
PNG
media_image3.png
165
369
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or an equivalent thereof, in which 0<RI<100,0<R2<l00, the signals u(t), V1(t), and V2(t) all having a working range of 0 to 100 [col. 6; lines 10-22].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination teaches the invention of claim 7 above and Cheng teaches, in which the split-range setter is set with the values of R1 and R2 to enable three working conditions, in which:
vacuum control valve is open and inflow air flow valve is closed; chamber pressure is decreasing [col3; lines 41-43];
both vacuum control valve and inflow air control valve are closed, chamber pressure is holding steady [col3; lines 41-43]; and vacuum control valve is closed and inflow air flow valve is open, chamber pressure is increasing [col3; lines 41-43].
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradshaw (US4331690A), Hunt (US3049913) and Sato (US4612200) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Cheng (US7142626B2).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination teaches the invention of claim 18 above and Bradshaw teaches an actuator being the vacuum control valve [60 and 62; col. 8; lines 12-24] a food chamber [30] a food chamber [30] temperature [col.9; lines 41-52] temperature to be controlled [col. 4; lines 37-48].
Modified Bradshaw does not explicitly teach comprising a temperature control system to control , further comprising:
a) a controller.
However, Cheng teaches comprising a temperature control system to control temperature [col. 1; lines 19-61], further comprising:
a) a controller [model-free adaptive (MFA); col. 7; lines 33-37].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Bradshaw teaching with Cheng by combining a temperature control system to control, further comprising: a controller where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. Secures the invention of claim eighteen with scalability, safety and other limit control actions [col. 6; lines 34-40].
Regarding Claim 22, the combination teaches the invention of claim 21 above and Cheng teaches further comprising a calculation mechanism to calculate an average value of [see col. 7; lines 43-46 where calculations are being made and col. 3; lines 16-19 where mechanism is described] the food temperature [Bradshaw; 306; col. 9; lines 41-52 where the temperature variable would be given by a temperature sensor] of all food chambers [Bradshaw; 30], in which an average food temperature is used as a measured process variable for controller [col.1; lines 5-18 where average food temperature is the process variable being controlled].
Regarding Claim 23, the combination teaches the invention of claim 18 above and Bradshaw teaches an actuator being the vacuum control valve [60 and 62; col. 8; lines 12-24] a food chamber [30] food chamber pressure to be controlled [col.9; lines 41-52].
Modified Bradshaw does not explicitly teach comprising a pressure control system to control, further comprising: a controller.
However, Cheng teaches comprising a pressure control system to control the pressure [col. 1; lines 1-61 where pressure is the process variable], further comprising:
a) a controller [model-free adaptive (MFA); col. 7; lines 33-37].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Bradshaw teaching with Cheng by combining a pressure control system to control the pressure, further comprising: a controller where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. Secures the invention of claim eighteen with scalability, safety and other limit control actions [col. 6; lines 34-40]
Regarding Claim 24, Babler, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 23 above and Cheng teaches further comprising a calculation mechanism to calculate an average value [see col. 7; lines 43-46 where calculations are being made and col. 3; lines 16-19 where mechanism is described] of the pressure [Bradshaw; 306; col. 9; lines 41-52 where the pressure variable would be given by a pressure sensor] of all food chambers [Bradshaw; 30], in which the average pressure is used as a measured process variable for the controller [col.1; lines 5-18 where average food pressure is the process variable being controlled].
further comprising a calculation mechanism to calculate the average value of the pressure of all food chambers [0016], Babler does not explicitly teach, in which the average pressure is used as the measured process variable for the single-input-single- output (SISO) controller.
However, Cheng teaches, in which the average pressure is used as the measured process variable for the single-input-single- output (SISO) controller [col. 22; lines 41-57].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to applicant' s argument that the term “refrigeration unit” should not invoke 112f, the Examiner disagrees. The claim language uses a generic placeholder, “unit,” coupled with functional language (“refrigeration”), without reciting sufficient structure in the Specification. Further the term “unit” is merely a nonce word of “non-structural generic placeholder” equivalent to the term “means” because it fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and, in the context of claims 1 and 15, invokes § 112(f). Therefore, the applicant' s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In regarding to applicant' s argument that the term “refrigeration unit” should be not rejected under 112a or 112b, the Examiner disagrees. The claim language uses a generic placeholder, “unit” coupled with functional language (“refrigeration”), without reciting sufficient structure in the Specification to perform the recited function. Regarding the Specification' s teachings, the Examiner finds that “The refrigeration unit 35 is used to cool down the cold trap 32 to condense water vapor” (paragraph 0035 of the published application) and where the cold trap is described as “used to condense water vapor from the food chamber back to liquid form” (paragraph 0035 of the published application) recite insufficient structure. The claim recites no particular structure to perform the recited function of “used to cool the cold trap”. Additionally, the specification does not disclose any refrigeration components to provide the requisite structure. Therefore, the applicant' s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 18 of the remarks, that Bradshaw and Hunt do not teach or suggest a scalable modular design with a plurality of food chambers, the Examiner disagrees.
For clarity Bradshaw describes in fig. 2 col. 8 lines 25-29 “dotted lines a possible position for a second cooling chamber suggesting that the design is scalable and modular, similar to the chamber 30.” Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For clarity, Bradshaw has been established in the rejection as the primary reference to teach an apparatus for cooling food capable of operating at extremely low pressure conditions. In other words, the teachings of Hunt have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the system of Bradshaw to have one feature. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned" Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". Hunt has been relied upon for having an electrical panel arranged to receive electric power and supply the power to the apparatus; and a conduit that houses the electrical and signal wires in between a chamber module and utility module for the obvious advantage of providing electrical power to the apparatus as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that the electric panel and conduit housing electrical and signal wires disclosed by Hunt could be integrated into the utility modules of Bradshaw to efficiently and safely provide power and electrical signals to the apparatus. Combining the electric panel and conduit of Hunt with the utility modules of Bradshaw would enhance the safety modularity. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on pg. 19 the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., food-type-specific vacuum pressure setpoint trajectories to prevent liquid splash and to enable efficient cooling or flavor infusion- The pressure is adapted based on food properties such as viscosity and adaptive setpoint trajectory, nor do they contemplate challenges such as liquid splash due to viscosity different between solid and liquid food products. Thus, the claimed system introduces smart control logic for Type A (solid) and Type B (liquid) foods with clearly defined adaptive pressure ramping strategies) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 19 of the remarks, that Bradshaw and Hunt do not teach or suggest Smart Control with Adaptive Pressure Setpoint Trajectories, the Examiner disagrees.
For clarity Bradshaw modified by Hunt describes what is claimed in claims 1-2,13-14 and 18 Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For clarity, Bradshaw has been established in the rejection as the primary reference to teach an apparatus for cooling food capable of operating at extremely low pressure conditions. In other words, the teachings of Babler have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the system of Bradshaw and Hunt to have one feature. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned" Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". Babler has been relied upon for avoiding liquid splash [0044].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that cooling program of Babler could be integrated into the apparatus of Bradshaw and Hunt to efficiently consider and avoid liquid splash to the apparatus. Combining the cooling program of Babler with the apparatus of Bradshaw and Hunt would enhance the safety and advance Bradshaw and Hunt. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on pg. 19 the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Dual-Mode System (Cooling and Infusion) and Process Versatility and the process safety, pressure adaptation, and modular scalability features of the claimed invention) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on pg. 19-20 the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Technical and Economic Advantages and claimed invention enables higher throughput, reduced capital cost per chamber, operational flexibility) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument based upon the age of the references, contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977).
In response to applicant’s argument on pg. 20 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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, applicant's argument based upon the age of the references, contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977). Further, motivation was provided in all present and previous combinations of references. Although a specific motivation may not have been explicitly stated within one of the references, the motivation was not improper, and provided in accordance with the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test (TSM). As such, Examiner's use of these facts as a motivation statement is in compliance with the requirements of the TSM test, since the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test should be flexibly applied and the teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be written within the reference. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex Parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
i.e. secures a flexible convenient place to secure power and electrical signal wires (fig. 4; Hunt). The Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case: all factual findings required by Graham were supplied in the previous and present Actions; the references are related art, and Applicant has supplied no evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of success; all claim limitations were met in the previous and present Actions, and Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and thus has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the first action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Neither has Applicant supplied any evidence or argument addressing any failure of Examiner's application of the TSM test, pursuant to current governing law (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)). Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 08:30AM-06:30PM (Eastern).
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights