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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged. However, no ground of traversal has been presented by the applicant.
Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not legible. The drawings are not readable and reproducible for publication purposes. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “in particular foodstuffs, pharmaceutical or biological products …” in line 1-2; which limitation is indefinite because it does not clearly limit the scope. It suggests examples or preferred embodiments rather than required claim limitations. In other words, does the process cover all products? or does it only cover those three categories? Further, are other products outside of those listed above within the scope of the claim? It's unclear.
Claim 1 also calls for the limitation “a deep freezing cabinet type” in line 3; which limitation is indefinite as it refers to a category or class by similarity, not a definite technical feature. It is unclear what makes “a deep freezing cabinet type”; must it be a deep freezing cabinet? Could a household refrigerator cabinet qualify as a deep freezing cabinet type? Because the term “a deep freezing cabinet type” does not objectively define the structure, so a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope with reasonable certainty.
Claim 1 further calls for the limitation “a deep freezing cabinet type to transfer of cold” in line 3; which limitation is grammatically incorrect and unclear in meaning.
Applicant is encouraged to recite “a deep freezing cabinet type to transfer cold”.
Claim 1 further calls for the limitation “wherein a coefficient of thermal transfer is constant” in line 6; which limitation is indefinite as it’s unclear what surfaces, media, or interfaces the coefficient applies to. In other words, the coefficient of thermal transfer is constant relative to (i) the entire process? (ii) the enclosure? (iii) the product contact surface? It’s uncertain.
Furthermore; in reality, coefficients of thermal transfer naturally vary with operating conditions. Thus, claiming that “a coefficient of thermal transfer is constant” appears scientifically unrealistic because the claim does not specify what range constitutes "constant."
Claim 1 further calls for the limitation “which is colder at the end of the process than at the start of the process” in lines 7-8; which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the term “which is” is referring to. Is the term “which is” referring to the temperature? The enclosure? It uncertain. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 further calls for the limitation “the process comprising one or each of the following steps:” in lines 4-5; the scope of which comprises “one of the following steps”. However, claim 1 further calls for “performing a second step, wherein the temperature which exists in the enclosure “. Given that the first step of claim 1 is optional, the recitation “the temperature which exists in the enclosure” lacks proper antecedent basis. Overall, the claim does not make clear whether performing the first step is actually required to satisfy the limitation “the temperature which exists in the enclosure” present in performing the second step. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 further calls for the limitation “as set at a given set point” in line 11; which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what said limitation is referring to. Is “as set at a given set point” referring to (i) performing a second step? Or (ii) the temperature being constant over a period of time? It’s uncertain. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 calls for the limitation “wherein a speed of rotation of fan(s) presented in the enclosure is between 1 and 10% of its/their full speed at the start of the process”; which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if (i) the speed of rotation of fan(s) is between 1 and 10% of its/their maximum operating speed at the time that the process is beginning; or if (ii) the speed of rotation of fan(s) is between 1 and 10% of the full speed the fan(s) had when the process started. Appropriate correction is required.
A similar issue is found in claim 6 with the recitation “wherein a speed of rotation of fan(s) presented in the enclosure is between 50 and 100% of its/their full speed at the end of the process.” It is unclear if (i) the speed of rotation of fan(s) is between 50 and 100% of its/their maximum operating speed at the time that the process is ending; or if (ii) the speed of rotation of fan(s) during the process is between 50 and 100% of the full speed the fan(s) have when the process ends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 20110151088 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Newman discloses a process for deep freezing of products (Fig. 1), in particular foodstuffs, pharmaceutical or biological products ([0013]), wherein the products are subjected in an enclosure #12 of a deep freezing cabinet type to transfer cold; the process comprising performing a first step, wherein a coefficient of thermal transfer is constant (i.e. in each zone 1-4; a thermal transfer is constant in view of the heat flux being unique at each zone. See [0015-0016]) and a temperature existing in the enclosure is not constant ([0015-0016]: temperature changes throughout the enclosure), which is colder at the end of the process than at the start of the process in order to stimulate a deep freezing ([0015-0016]).
To the extent that applicant submits that Newman does not disclose wherein the coefficient of thermal transfer is constant; Newman discloses that based on the thermal characteristics of the product #26 introduced at the inlet #20 and the rate at which it needs to be frozen, the fan assembly #36 speeds and cryogen injection rates will be adjusted to control the desired heat flux curve through the zones #40-46 ([0016]).
Thus, the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is with regards to the optimal operating temperature. However, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. Since the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Newman with the coefficient of thermal transfer being constant.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have optimize cooling for a specific product as suggested by Newman ([0016]).
Newman does not also disclose wherein the products are subjected to a constant deep freezing speed throughout the process.
Nonetheless, Newman clearly outlines that depending upon the production rate of the product and the freezing characteristics that will have to be employed, the controller 48 adjusts the speed of the conveyor belt #24 and hence the speed of the product #26 through the freezing chamber #18 and/or the residence time of the product #26 in each one of the zones #40-46 of the freezing chamber #18 ([0017]).
This is strong evidence that the speed throughout the process is a result effective variable that can be optimized by routine optimization. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Newman with the products subjected to a constant deep freezing speed throughout the process.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have optimize cooling for a specific product as suggested by Newman ([0017]).
Regarding claims 2-4:
The limitations presented herein are directed to the operating temperatures.
Nonetheless, Newman discloses that based on the thermal characteristics of the product #26 introduced at the inlet #20 and the rate at which it needs to be frozen, the fan assembly #36 speeds and cryogen injection rates will be adjusted to control the desired heat flux curve through the zones #40-46 ([0016]).
This is strong evidence that the operating temperatures are results effective variable that can be optimized by routine optimization. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
However, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. Since the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Newman with the claimed operating temperatures.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have optimize cooling for a specific product as suggested by Newman ([0016-0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cousin (US 20120255315 A1) teaches deep-freezing products in a chamber, wherein the method controls an effective heat-transfer coefficient via fluid choice, mixing, and forced convection.
Filippi (EP 2078910 A1) teaches quick deep-freezing of food has a target temperature of at least -18°C.
Knopf (US 4799358 A) teaches a constant temperature change in the cooling zone during a predetermined time or temperature interval.
Shaham (US 20080120984 A1) and Butler (US 20070125099 A1) each teaches a controlled rate freezer for controlled freezing of biological material.
Zheng (US 20230195146 A1) and Corey (US 20190137163 A1) teaches heat transfer control in pertinent cooling applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763