DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 26th 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 6, 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites reference numerals in the claim limitation. The reference numerals should be removed.
Claim 15 should end in a period.
Claim 20 recites “…wherein he laminar port block baffle contributed to the setting of the ratio of gases.” should be replaced with “…wherein the laminar port block baffle contributed to the setting of the ratio of gases.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-22 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.
Claim 1 recites “…a laminar flow input generally aligned with the laminar flow channel…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the alignment is positively recited or not.
Claim 1 recites “…a slit extending generally parallel to the laminar input flow…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the parallel extension is positively recited or not.
Claim 1 recites “…one or more slots for laminar flow which are at least partially aligned with the laminar chamber…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the alignment is positively recited or not.
Claim 1 recites “…the at least one gas distribution slot…is aligned with the accelerated flow slots…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the alignment is positively recited or not.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein the accelerated gas tends to draw in laminar gas…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the drawn laminar gas is positively recited or not.
Claim 1 recites “…the first gas source provides about 15-25%…” This claim is deemed infinite because the values outside of this range are unclear.
Claim 1 recites “…the second gas source provides about 75-85%…” This claim is deemed infinite because the values outside of this range are unclear.
Claim 2 recites “…the first gas source provides about 20%…” This claim is deemed infinite because the use of the term “about” fails to point out an actual value.
Claim 2 recites “…the second gas source provides about 80%…” This claim is deemed infinite because the use of the term “about” fails to point out an actual value.
Claim 3 recites “…wherein the mesh baffle slows downward flow of gas provides a more even downward distribution…” This claim is deemed infinite because the grammar of the claim makes the limitation unclear.
Claim 3 recites “…downward distribution in a pattern similar to the elongated horizontal laminar flow…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the is pattern is positively recited or not.
Claim 4 recites “…the two layers of stainless-steel mesh may be spot welded together…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the spot welding is positively recited or not.
Claim 4 recites “…wherein the 2-ply layer provides a barrier to product from container…” This claim is deemed infinite because the grammar of the claim makes the limitation unclear.
Claim 5 recites “…whereby the insert assembly may be easily disassembled for cleaning.” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether easy disassembling is positively recited or not.
Claim 6 recites “…each seat having a generally rectangular shape…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether rectangular shape is positively recited or not.
Claim 11 recites “…a laminar flow input generally aligned with the laminar flow channel…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the alignment is positively recited or not.
Claim 11 recites “…a slit extending generally centered along the longitudinally axis of the insert assembly…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the centering is positively recited or not.
Claim 11 recites “…a slit…generally aligned with the accelerated flow channel…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the alignment is positively recited or not.
Claim 11 recites “…one or more slots for laminar flow which are at least partially aligned with the laminar chamber…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the alignment is positively recited or not.
Claim 11 recites “…accelerated flow slots of the gassing element and at least partially blocks the laminar flows slot…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the blocking is positively recited or not.
Claim 11 recites “…wherein the accelerated gas tends to draw in laminar gas…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the drawn laminar gas is positively recited or not.
Claim 13 recites “…the solid baffle may be made of stainless steel…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the baffle material is positively recited or not.
Claim 13 recites “…the laminar gas flow opening may be a small orifice…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the small orifice is positively recited or not.
Claim 13 recites “…and optionally provides a 2.5 mm orifice…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the 2. 5mm orifice is positively recited or not.
Claim 14 recites “…the two layers of stainless-steel mesh may be spot welded together…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the spot welding is positively recited or not.
Claim 14 recites “…wherein the slits has a width in a range of about .25mm to 1mm.” This claim is deemed infinite because the values outside of this range are unclear.
Claim 15 recites “…whereby the insert assembly may be easily disassembled for cleaning.” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether easy disassembling is positively recited or not.
Claim 16 recites “…whereby about 60-85% of gas exits the accelerated outlet…” This claim is deemed infinite because the values outside of this range are unclear.
Claim 16 recites “…whereby…about 15-40% of the gas exits the laminar outlet…” This claim is deemed infinite because the values outside of this range are unclear.
Claim 16 recites “…preferably the ratio is 80% and 20%…” This claim is deemed infinite because the use of the term “preferably” fails to point out an actual ratio value.
Claim 17 recites “…each seat having a generally rectangular shape…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether rectangular shape is positively recited or not.
Claim 19 recites “…whereby about 60-85% of gas exits the accelerated outlet…” This claim is deemed infinite because the values outside of this range are unclear.
Claim 19 recites “…whereby…about 15-40% of the gas exits the laminar outlet…” This claim is deemed infinite because the values outside of this range are unclear.
Claim 19 recites “…preferably the ratio is 80% and 20%…” This claim is deemed infinite because the use of the term “preferably” fails to point out an actual ratio value.
Claim 20 recites “…the laminar port block baffle…has an aperture of approximately 2.5 mm…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the 2. 5mm aperture is positively recited or not.
Claim 21 recites “…the slit is generally aligned with the center of the gas distribution outlet…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the alignment is positively recited or not.
Claim 21 recites “…directing the laminar flow of flushing gas to exit the gas distribution outlet generally along a perimeter of the gas distribution outlet…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the perimeter of the gas distribution outlet is positively recited or not.
Claim 21 recites “…and concurrently generally surrounding the accelerated flow of flushing gas…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the surrounding of the accelerated flow is positively recited or not.
Claim 22 recites “…to provide about 15-25% of laminar flow of flushing gas…” This claim is deemed infinite because the values outside of this range are unclear.
Claim 22 recites “…and about 75-85% of accelerated flow of flushing gas…” This claim is deemed infinite because the values outside of this range are unclear.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the most relevant prior art is Marcus et al. (US 2006/0231157; “Marcus”).
Marcus discloses a gassing rail apparatus (10) to be used in a food packaging conveyor system (40; para. [0003]), the gassing rail apparatus (10) adapted to be coupled to a first gas source and a second gas source (para. [0029]), comprising:
a rail top (12), the rail top (12) having an upper portion with a laminar flow port opening (64, 68) and an accelerated flow port opening (66), and a lower portion having a laminar flow channel (34, 38) and an accelerated flow channel (36), the channels (34, 36, 38) extending longitudinally in a parallel arrangement (Figs. 1-3), the laminar flow port opening (64, 68) coupled to the laminar flow channel (34, 38; Fig. 2) and the accelerated flow port opening (66) coupled to the accelerated flow channel (36; Fig. 2);
a first gas port coupled to the laminar flow port opening (64, 68), the first gas port is adapted for coupling to a first gas source (para. [0029]);
a second gas port coupled to the accelerated flow port opening (66), the second gas port is adapted for coupling to a second gas source (para. [0029]);
an insert assembly (88 left, 88 right; Fig. 2) located below the rail top (12) and having an upper portion and a lower portion (Fig. 2).
Marcus fails to disclose the upper portion includes a laminar flow input generally aligned with the laminar flow channel.
Additionally, it would not have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art to modify element 88 of Marcus with the aforementioned limitation because element 88 is an O-ring which is functionally designed to seal. Providing an O-ring with a laminar flow input would render it functionless.
Regarding claim 11, the most relevant prior art is Marcus et al. (US 2006/0231157; “Marcus”).
Marcus discloses a gassing rail apparatus (10) to be used in a food packaging conveyor system (40; para. [0003]), comprising:
a rail top (12), the rail top (12) having an upper portion with a laminar flow port opening (64, 68) and an accelerated flow port opening (66), and a lower portion having a laminar flow channel (34, 38) and an accelerated flow channel (36), the channels (34, 36, 38) extending longitudinally in a parallel arrangement (Figs. 1-3), the laminar flow port opening (64, 68) coupled to the laminar flow channel (34, 38; Fig. 2) and the accelerated flow port opening (66) coupled to the accelerated flow channel (36; Fig. 2);
a gas port coupled to the laminar flow port opening (64, 68), and the accelerated flow port opening (66), the gas port is adapted for coupling to a gas source (para. [0029]);
an insert assembly (88 left, 88 right; Fig. 2) located below the rail top (12) and having an upper portion and a lower portion (Fig. 2).
Marcus fails to disclose the upper portion includes a laminar flow input generally aligned with the laminar flow channel.
Additionally, it would not have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art to modify element 88 of Marcus with the aforementioned limitation because element 88 is an O-ring which is functionally designed to seal. Providing an O-ring with a laminar flow input would render it functionless.
Regarding claim 19, the most relevant prior art is Marcus et al. (US 2006/0231157; “Marcus”).
Marcus discloses a gassing rail apparatus (10) to be used in a food packaging conveyor system (40; para. [0003]).
Marcus fails to disclose a gas attachment comprising:
a single port block having a gas inlet in fluid communication with a port fitting, the gas inlet is in fluid communication with a laminar port and an accelerated port, the accelerated port communicates with an accelerated outlet, the laminar port communicates with a laminar outlet, the diameter of the accelerated port is larger than the diameter of the laminar port so as to control the ratio of gases, whereby about 60-85% of gas exits the accelerated outlet and about 15-40% of the gas exits the laminar outlet, and preferably the ratio is 80% and 20%.
Regarding claim 21, the most relevant prior art is Marcus et al. (US 2006/0231157; “Marcus”).
Marcus disclose a method of displacing undesirable gases from an empty container, the method comprising:
providing a gassing rail apparatus (10) having a source of flushing gas (para. [0029]), a rail top (12), an insert assembly (88 left, 88 right; Fig. 2), a gassing element having a gas resistant media, and a rail bottom (14).
Marcus fails to disclose the insert assembly having a slit; and a rail bottom having a gas distribution outlet which defines a perimeter which surrounds a center.
Additionally, it would not have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art to modify element 88 of Marcus with a slit because element 88 is an O-ring which is functionally designed to seal. Providing an O-ring with a slit would render it functionless.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
8. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731