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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pike (US 3,285,022).
Regarding claim 1, Pike discloses a process for concentrating extracts by freezing, and teaches in the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 that a feature of the invention is the control of the heat removed from the extract in heat exchanger 2 for the purpose of undercooling the extract below the normal freezing point of the extract, and that the concentration and kind of extract determines its nor normal freezing point. Pike also teaches at col. 2, lines 66-69 that by maintain carefully controlled conditions during the heat transfer of the undercooling, dense pure ice crystals are formed without occluding the solute. The difference between the process disclosed by Pike, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that Pike does not disclose the steps of determining a characteristic of liquid exiting the feedstock chamber as the feedstock thaws, the characteristic being indicative of a solute concentration level of the liquid, and controlling a flow controller based on the characteristic to direct the liquid to define a plurality of products. It would be obvious to modify the process of Pike by controlling a flow controller based on a solute concentration level of the liquid exiting the feedstock chamber as the feedstock thaws. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Pike recognizes a correlation between the conditions during the heat transfer of the undercooling, and the degree of solute concentration, at col. 2, lines 55-72, and one would appreciate from such correlation that the solute level should be controlled to prevent occlusion of the solute especially since Pike teaches ion the sentence bridging columns 4 and t that the concentration and kind of extract determines he degree of undercooling’s liquid in the process of Pike would define a plurality of products to no less extent than in applicant’s process, since Pike suggest the process steps recited in applicant’s claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the liquid in crystallizer 2 of Pike would freeze before thawing, since Pike teaches at col. 4, lines 70-74 that the extract is undercooled below the freezing point of the extract.
Regarding claim 5, Pike recognizes at col. 4, lines 40-44 that the solute concentration is dependent on the conditions in the heat exchange. It would be obvious from such disclosure to provide a plurality of containers for directing liquid via a plurality of output paths, depending on the desired concentration of the extract.
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that a fraction of the liquid is returned to the feedstock chamber in the process of Pike through lines 8, 9 and 10.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2006/003968. It would be further obvious from WO 2006/003968 to regulate thermal transfer in the process of Pike by controlling rates of freezing and thawing through a cooling chamber and heating chamber, since WO 2006/003968 establishes the conventionality of such arrangement in Paragraphs [0005] and [0010] of the English translation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Myerson et al (US 2014/0256984). It would be further obvious from Myerson et al to transmit and receive date to and from a remote controller in the process of Pike. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Myerson establishes the conventionality of such arrangement in Paragraph [0057].
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736