DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 20 February 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-21 are presently pending, with claims 17-20 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 21 being examined herein.
2. All objections, all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and rejections of claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
3. Rejections of claims 7-9 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nomura in view of Reddy are maintained.
4. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (US 20030215226 A1) in view of Reddy et al (US 20100129157 A1).
6. Regarding claim 1, Nomura discloses a steam boost system (superheated steam generator, Abstract, pars 0010-0012, FIG. 1) for a steam sterilizer (disinfections of food products in a food processor, par 0100) comprising:
a steam sterilizer (superheated steam discharge pipe 5 is connected to a food processor to disinfect, pars 0026 and 0100);
a source of steam (steam supply pipe 3 supplies saturated steam, pars 0022 and 0041) operatively communicating steam from the source of steam to the steam sterilizer (superheated steam discharge pipe 5 to disinfect food products, pars 0022 and 0063; FIG. 1); and
a boost container (tank 1, FIG. 1) operatively communicating with steam communicating from the source of steam to the steam sterilizer (tank 1 being a passageway of supplied steam from the steam supply pipe 3 to the superheated steam discharge pipe 5, pars 0022-0024), the boost container being operable to sense a temperature of the steam communicating from the source of steam to the steam sterilizer (temperature sensor inside the tank 1, par 0037) and adjust a temperature of the steam by electrically heating the steam to a dry vapor superheated steam (rise and fall of the temperature can be controlled via operating a switch operating on a high-frequency current, par 0037) and communicating the dry vapor superheated steam to the steam sterilizer (superheated steam discharge pipe 5 to disinfect food products, pars 0022 and 0063).
Nomura teaches that the boost container includes heating elements configured to directly contact the steam flowing from the source of steam to the steam sterilizer, but the Joule heating of these elements is induced by an external magnetic coil (pars 0032-0033). Thus, Nomura does not teach electric resistance tubular heating elements configured to directly contact the steam.
Reddy teaches an analogous superheated steam generator (par 0011) used for reducing microorganisms associated with an item (Abstract) wherein electrically heated coils (par 0079) depicted as tubular structures within a tubular housing (FIGS. 2-3) heat a gas passing through the annular space (par 0011). The orientation of the coils forces the gas to move in a spiral in the space between turns to thereby increase the heat transfer to the gas (par 0010, FIG. 5). In another embodiment, Reddy teaches that coils may be encased in a heat-transmitting cover (par 0041) to more clearly assume the tubular form depicted in FIG. 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the heating element of the steam generator of Nomura as an electric resistance tubular heating element to contact the steam inside the steam generator as taught by Reddy. Doing so would predictably provide the same improved heat transfer from the electrical resistance elements into the gas as taught by Reddy (pars 0007 and 0010). See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
7. Regarding claim 3, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 1, wherein the steam sterilizer is a sterilizing apparatus of food processing equipment (the superheated steam generator is used for the disinfections of food products in a food processor, Nomura par 0100).
8. Regarding claim 4, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 1, wherein the boost container is a separate component from the steam sterilizer (tip of the superheated steam discharge pipe 5 is connected to a food processor/sterilizer, Nomura pars 0026 and 0100). Although the limitation “is retrofit to the steam communicating from the source of steam to the steam sterilizer” can be interpreted as an intended use, which does not carry patentable weight (see MPEP 2114(II)), Nomura teaches that the steam sterilizer is installed in such a way that it communicates steam from the source of steam to the steam sterilizer (pars 0022-0026), reading upon this limitation.
9. Regarding claim 5, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 1, the boost container having an interior volume (inside the tank 1, Nomura par 0027, FIG. 1) communicating with the steam communicating from the source of steam to the steam sterilizer (tank 1 being a passageway of supplied steam from the steam supply pipe 3 to the superheated steam discharge pipe 5, Nomura par 0022), the boost container being operable to adjust a temperature of steam in the interior volume of the boost container to a dry vapor superheated steam (inside the tank…rise and fall of the temperature can be controlled via operating a switch operating on a high-frequency current, Nomura par 0037).
10. Regarding claim 7, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 1, wherein the electrical tubular heating elements of Reddy are electrically coupled to heat a gas to produce superheated steam (Reddy par 0011). When substituted into the steam boost system of Nomura, the electric tubular heating elements transfer heat to the steam to produce the dry vapor superheated steam (Joule heat inside the tank 1, Nomura pars 0032-0033; thus producing superheated steam for different uses such as disinfections and drying, Nomura pars 0004-0005) during the intended operational use of superheating steam.
11. Regarding claim 8, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 7, wherein the electric resistance tubular heating elements have exterior surfaces inside the boost container that come into direct contact with steam inside the boost container (Reddy FIGS. 2-3, Reddy pars 0010-0011) and produce dry vapor superheated steam from the steam inside the boost container (producing superheated steam, Nomura par 0012; heating the steam produces superheated steam inside industrial heater, Reddy par 0051) that contacts the exterior surfaces (gas is rifled between coils i.e. contacting exterior surfaces, Reddy par 0010).
12. Regarding claim 9, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 8, the boost container directly communicating with the steam sterilizer, the boost container directly communicating the dry vapor superheated steam from inside the boost container to the steam sterilizer (tank 1 being a passageway of supplied steam from the steam supply pipe 3 to the superheated steam discharge pipe 5, Nomura par 0022).
13. Regarding claim 10, Nomura discloses a steam boost system (superheated steam generator, Abstract, pars 0010-0012, FIG. 1) on a steam sterilizer (tip of the superheated steam discharge pipe 5 is connected to a food processor for the disinfections of food products, pars 0026 and 0100) comprising:
a boost container (tank 1, FIG. 1) having an interior volume (inside the tank 1, par 0027, FIG. 1);
an inlet nozzle on the boost container (steam supply pipe 3, FIG. 1, par 0022), the inlet nozzle communicating with a supply of steam (saturated steam is supplied from the steam supply pipe 3) and communicating the supply of steam to the interior volume of the boost container (tank 1 is connected to the steam supply pipe 3 on one end, par 0024);
heating elements in the interior volume of the boost container (coil 21, metal plates 11 and beads 13, pars 0022 and 0027-0029, FIG. 1; power supply causes coil 21 to create magnetic field producing Joule heat inside the tank 1, pars 0032-0033), the heating elements directly contacting the supply of steam in the interior volume of the boost container (magnetic body, disposed inside the superheating tank, which is in contact with the steam, par 0010) to heat the supply of steam in the interior volume of the boost container (producing Joule heat inside the tank 1, par 0033) and produce dry vapor superheated steam in the interior volume (superheated steam generator of the present embodiment can continuously produce superheated steam from discharge pipe 5, par 0041); and
an outlet nozzle on the boost container (superheated steam discharge pipe 5, FIG. 1, par 0022), the outlet nozzle communicating with a steam sterilizer (superheated steam discharge pipe 5 is connected to a food processor to disinfect, pars 0026 and 0100) and communicating the dry vapor superheated steam in the interior volume of the boost container to the steam sterilizer (tank 1 is connected to the superheated steam discharge pipe 5 on the other end, par 0024).
Nomura teaches that the Joule heating of the heating elements is induced by an external magnetic coil (pars 0032-0033), thus, Nomura does not teach electric resistance heating elements directly contacting the steam.
Reddy teaches an analogous superheated steam generator (par 0011) used for reducing microorganisms associated with an item (Abstract) wherein electrically heated coils (par 0079, FIGS. 2-3) heat a gas passing through the annular space (par 0011). The orientation of the coils forces the gas to move in a manner that increases direct contact to the steam to thereby increase the heat transfer to the gas (par 0010, FIG. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the heating elements of the steam generator of Nomura as electric resistance heating elements directly contacting the steam inside the boost container as taught by Reddy. Doing so would predictably provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, the same improvement in heat transfer from the electrical resistance elements into the gas as taught by Reddy (pars 0007 and 0010). See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
14. Regarding claim 12, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 10, wherein the steam sterilizer is a sterilizing apparatus of food processing equipment (the superheated steam generator is used for the disinfections of food products in a food processor, Nomura par 0100).
15. Regarding claim 14, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 10, wherein the electric heating elements transfer heat to the supply of steam in the interior volume of the boost container (Joule heat inside the tank 1, pars 0032-0033) producing dry vapor superheated steam (thus producing superheated steam, pars 0004-0005). The combination does not explicitly teach that these heating elements are electric resistance tubular heating elements.
Reddy further teaches wherein the electrical coils are depicted as tubular structures within a tubular housing (FIGS. 2-3) and in another embodiment, that coils may be encased in a heat-transmitting cover (par 0041) to more clearly assume the tubular form depicted in FIG. 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the heating element of modified Nomura as a tubular element as taught by Reddy. Doing so would predictably provide the same heat transfer from the electrical resistance elements into the steam by directly contacting the steam as demonstrated by Reddy (pars 0007 and 0010). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
16. Regarding claim 15, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 14, wherein the electric resistance tubular heating elements have exterior surfaces inside the boost container that come into direct contact with the supply of steam inside the boost container (Reddy FIGS. 2-3, Reddy pars 0010-0011) and produce dry vapor superheated steam (producing superheated steam, Nomura par 0012) that contacts the exterior surfaces of the electric resistance tubular heating elements (gas is rifled between coils i.e. contacting exterior surfaces, Reddy par 0010) from the supply of steam inside the boost container (heating the steam produces superheated steam inside industrial heater, Reddy par 0051).
17. Regarding claim 16, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 15, the boost container directly communicating with the steam sterilizer, the boost container directly communicating the dry vapor superheated steam from inside the boost container to the steam sterilizer (tank 1 being a passageway of supplied steam from the steam supply pipe 3 to the superheated steam discharge pipe 5, Nomura par 0022).
18. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (US 20030215226 A1) and Reddy et al (US 20100129157 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mignani (US 5849094 A).
Regarding claim 2, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 1 but does not teach any structure to the steam sterilizer other than its uses as a food processing disinfector or other various heat treatment devices (par 0100). Thus, Nomura and Reddy do not specifically teach wherein the steam sterilizer is an autoclave steam sterilizer.
Mignani teaches an autoclave (Abstract, col 4 lines 47-67) wherein an analogous heater of the electric type is arranged along the supply duct in order to superheat the fluid supplied to the autoclave (col 5 lines 6-9, FIG. 1, heater 14 in supply duct 7 feeding autoclave 2), providing the advantage of cleaning in the absence of oxygen to prevent residue (col 4 lines 3-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the discharge pipe of the steam sterilizer of modified Nomura to supply superheated steam to an autoclave as taught by Mignani. Doing so would predictably provide suitable superheating to the steam, providing the same advantage of cleaning without forming oxidized residues (Mignani col 4 lines 3-18).
19. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (US 20030215226 A1) and Reddy et al (US 20100129157 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mignani (US 5849094 A).
Regarding claim 11, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 10 but does not teach any structure to the steam sterilizer other than its uses as a food processing disinfector or other various heat treatment devices (par 0100). Thus, Nomura and Reddy do not specifically teach wherein the steam sterilizer is an autoclave steam sterilizer.
Mignani teaches an autoclave (Abstract, col 4 lines 47-67) wherein an analogous heater of the electric type is arranged along the supply duct in order to superheat the fluid supplied to the autoclave (col 5 lines 6-9, FIG. 1, heater 14 in supply duct 7 feeding autoclave 2), providing the advantage of cleaning in the absence of oxygen to prevent residue (col 4 lines 3-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the discharge pipe of the steam sterilizer of modified Nomura to supply superheated steam to an autoclave as taught by Mignani. Doing so would predictably provide suitable superheating to the steam, providing the same advantage of cleaning without forming oxidized residues (Mignani col 4 lines 3-18).
20. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (US 20030215226 A1) and Reddy et al (US 20100129157 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tonomura et al (US 20150180361 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Nomura as modified by Reddy teaches the steam boost system of claim 1 further comprising: a temperature sensor disposed somewhere inside the boost container (temperature sensor inside the tank, Nomura par 0037); a temperature control system operatively connected to the temperature sensor and the electric resistance tubular heating elements (detects a predetermined temperature to operate a switch that is operating on a high-frequency current so that a rise and fall of the temperature can be controlled, Nomura par 0037), the temperature control system being designed to maintain a desired temperature by adjusting a heat output of the electric resistance tubular heating elements (allows a temperature to be gradually increased or decreased over a maintained level of high-frequency output, without accompanying an abrupt temperature increase, thereby improving the accuracy of temperature control, Nomura par 0037). The combination does not teach that the first temperature sensor would be disposed proximate to an inlet of the boost container, or a second temperature sensor disposed proximate to an outlet of the boost container, with both sensors operatively connected to the temperature control system.
Tonomura teaches an analogous superheated steam generator (Abstract) including two heating tubes (FIG. 1), wherein a first heating tube is controlled to generate saturated steam and has a first temperature sensor mounted therein to monitor an output temperature from this tube (pars 0077 and 0079) and wherein a second heating tube is controlled to generate superheated steam and has a second temperature sensor mounted therein to monitor an output temperature from this tube (pars 0077 and 0081). The position of at least the second temperature sensor at the outlet of the second tube is motivated by matching with the predetermined temperature of superheated steam from the fluid outlet port 4p2(par 0070). As the first temperature sensor measures saturated steam (pars 0082-0083), which would be expected to have the same temperature throughout the vaporization vessel, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to locate the first temperature sensor proximate to the outlet of the first heating tube i.e. proximate to the inlet of the second heating tube to provide an accurate saturated steam temperature. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include and operatively connect with the control system of the steam boost system of modified Nomura a first temperature sensor disposed proximate to an inlet of the boost container and a second temperature sensor disposed proximate to an outlet of the boost container as taught by Tonomura. Doing so would predictably measure a temperature of the inlet saturated steam and the outlet superheated steam, and provide electrical control of the heating elements in a similar manner as taught by Tonomura (par 0077). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
21. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 20 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 8-9 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and the rejections of claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made over Nomura in view of Reddy to address the newly recited limitation wherein the boost container includes electric resistance tubular heating elements configured to directly contact the steam, as necessitated by the amendments.
22. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 20 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 7-9 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Reddy merely teaches helical wire coils that are not tubular coils and that these coils of Reddy only heat gas in the annular space without heating the steam. Examiner respectfully disagrees, pointing out that the structures of the coils are depicted as tubular in FIGS. 2-3 and 5 and adding that Reddy teaches that a thermally conductive cover may be placed around the coils to make them even more tubular (par 0041). Further, Reddy conducts experiments using the tubular heating coils of the invention wherein mist was injected before the coil and ahead of the coil (par 0069), indicating that the coils of Reddy are capable of performing and even preferably employed to perform the intended use of heating a steam.
Conclusion
23. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights