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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masuda (WO 2014/136382 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Masuda discloses an apparatus (refer to Figs. 2-3) for treating and/or preserving foods, water, liquids, and the like, comprising:
an external structure (refer to fig. 2) in which there is at least one treatment chamber (200) in which said foods, water, liquids, and the like are arranged;
a flow of fluid (air) circulating in said at least one treatment chamber (200), and
an optimizer (refer to electrostatic atomization unit 210) in which there is at least one active element (including at least components 212, 214 and 215) comprising different layers of materials, adapted to interact with the flow of fluid (air) circulating in the at least one treatment chamber and lapping the foods, water, liquids, and the like arranged in the chamber (refer to page 5, paras. 3-4, wherein fan adjusting unit 330 controls ventilation fan 500 to circulate the flow of fluid, and a direction adjusting unit 340 controls a louver 510, wherein a discharge direction A of the fluid is controlled and as a result, the exposure amount of the fluid exposed to vegetables arranged in the chamber is adjusted),
wherein an electrostatic current (generated by a high voltage applied to a discharge electrode as described below; according to pg. 4, par. 6, a detection circuit 250 detects a discharge current generated when the high voltage is applied to the discharge electrode 212 by a high-voltage power supply circuit 230) is produced by the optimizer as a result of the optimizer being crossed by the flow of fluid circulating in the at least one treatment chamber (refer to pg. 4, par. 7, wherein heat generated by the energization of thermoelectric element 215c moves from circuit board 215a on the discharge electrode 212 side to the circuit board 215b on the heat radiation member 216 side (see fig. 3) and along with this heat movement, the discharge electrode 212 is cooled via the cooling insulating plate 214, therefore, the air around the discharge electrode 212 is cooled, and as a result, water in the air adheres to the surface of the discharge electrode 212 (if a high voltage is applied between the discharge electrode 212 and the counter electrode 211 so that the discharge electrode 212 becomes a minus electrode by the high voltage power supply circuit 230, the water is pulled up to the counter electrode 211 side by the Coulomb force); the water is pulled up to the counter electrode 211 side by the Coulomb force and forms a Taylor cone. After that, water repeats Rayleigh splitting, and becomes charged particle water containing radicals which is represented by the arrows A being discharged from the optimizer as in fig. 3, and this charged fine particle water containing radicals suppresses the occurrence of fungi and the deterioration of flowers and vegetables due to oxidation. Therefore, for the reasons disclosed above, the electrostatic current being produced by the high-voltage power supply circuit 230 in the optimizer, is produced due to fluid crossing the optimizer in order to create the charged fine particle water containing radicals).
Regarding claim 19, Masuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 18. Further, Masuda discloses wherein the optimizer (210) is
housed in the at least one treatment chamber (refer to Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 30-32, Masuda discloses a method for treating and/or
preserving foods, characterized in that the method comprises a step of residence, for a
predefined time, in an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the residence time is
comprised between some minutes and some hours; less than 180 minutes (refer to
pg. 6, par. 7, and pg. 7, par. 2, wherein the radical exposure time for vegetables is 1
minute to 24 hours).
Regarding claim 33, Masuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in
the rejection of claim 32. Further, Masuda discloses wherein the foods comprise
vegetables.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (WO 2014/136382 A1) in view of Nishimura (JP 2011/152499 A).
Regarding claims 20-21, Masuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 19. Further, Masuda discloses wherein the active element comprises a metal (refer to page 3, par.5, wherein the discharge electrode 212 is made of a conductive metal), but Masuda fails to explicitly disclose wherein the different layers of materials of the active element comprise metal materials, and wherein the different layers of the active element comprise at least one metal from the group consisting of copper, aluminum, and alloys thereof, coated with a precious metal selected from the group consisting of silver, gold, platinum, and alloys thereof.
However, Nishimura teaches an electrostatic atomizer, comprising a discharge electrode (1) including different layers such as aluminum or copper, subjected to a surface treatment (coating) such as gold plating or platinum plating, in order to improve corrosion resistance (refer to page 2, par. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Masuda such that the different layers of materials of the active element comprise metal materials, and wherein the different layers of the active element comprise at least one metal from the group consisting of copper, aluminum, and alloys thereof, coated with a precious metal selected from the group consisting of silver, gold, platinum, and alloys thereof in view of the teachings by Nishimura, in order to improve corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 22, Masuda as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 21. Further, Masuda as modified discloses wherein the different layers of the active element comprise at least one metal, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the alloys of the active element comprise brass, bronze, zamac and aluminum bronze.
However, parent claim 21 provides alternative limitations in regards to the metal. In the instant case, Masuda as modified discloses one of said alternatives which includes at least one metal from the group consisting of copper or aluminum. Since the alternative of the alloys as in claim 22 was not elected by the examiner, the reference of Masuda as modified meets the claim limitations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Masuda such that the different layers of the active element include alloys comprising brass, bronze, zamac and aluminum bronze because it would be a matter of choice of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Masuda as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 22. Further, Masuda as modified discloses wherein said at least one active element comprises a substantially conical element (212a, Fig. 3) made of a metal material selected from the group consisting of copper, coated with a precious metal selected from the group consisting of gold (refer to page 2, par. 10 by Nishimura).
Claim(s) 24-25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (WO 2014/136382 A1), Nishimura (JP 2011/152499 A), and further in view of Shibuya (JP 2020/065944 A).
Regarding claims 24-25, Masuda as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 23. Further, Masuda as modified discloses wherein said at least one active element is housed in a container (refer to Fig. 3, wherein said container includes support frame 210a containing a resin), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein said container is a metallic container made of stainless steel.
However, Shibuya further teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide an electrostatic atomization device housed in a metallic container (refer to pg. 2, par. 4, wherein container 10 is made of, for example, a metal material such as stainless steel, but may be made of a resin material).
One having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration would recognize that by providing the container made of stainless steel, it will improve the containers durability, provide corrosion resistance, and low maintenance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Masuda such that the container is a metallic container made of stainless steel, in order to improve the containers durability, provide corrosion resistance, and low maintenance in view of the teachings by Shibuya along with the knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration.
Regarding claim 29, Masuda as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 25. Further, Masuda as modified discloses a
refrigerating unit selected from the group consisting of a food preserving apparatus.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (WO 2014/136382 A1), Nishimura (JP 2011/152499 A), Shibuya (JP 2020/065944 A), and further in view of Meneghin (EP 3702708 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Masuda as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 25. Further, Masuda as modified discloses wherein the at least one treatment chamber is a chiller for foods, adopting a temperature of 15°C to maintain freshness (refer to page 7, par. 1), but fails to explicitly disclose the chiller being a blast chiller operating in a temperature range between 2 °C and 80 °C.
However, Meneghin further teaches a blast chiller (refer to Figs. 1-2), operating in a temperature range between 2 °C and 80 °C (refer to Fig. 2), in order to guarantee the preservation of food products, and to reduce as much as possible the growth of bacteria and/or other biological microorganisms (refer to par. 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Masuda such that the chiller is a blast chiller operating in a temperature range between 2 °C and 80 °C in view of the teachings by Meneghin, in order to guarantee the preservation of food products, and to reduce as much as possible the growth of bacteria and/or other biological microorganisms.
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (WO 2014/136382 A1), Nishimura (JP 2011/152499 A), Shibuya (JP 2020/065944 A), and further in view of Zhu (CN 204281471 U).
Regarding claims 27-28, Masuda as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 25. Further, Masuda as modified discloses the at least one treatment chamber, and a container (including support frame 210a) in which a chamber is defined, in fluid communication with an outside through at least one inlet and an outlet (refer to Fig. 3), where the optimizer is housed, but Masuda as modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one treatment chamber is a water dispenser, and the container is for supplying water or another liquid.
However, Zhu further teaches a water dispenser comprising a drinking water filter core, including a container having a water inlet (1) and a water outlet (8), and an optimizer housed in the container and having different layers including a metal copper layer (5), in order to provide safe and reliable drinking water (refer to the end of the Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Masuda such that the at least one treatment chamber is a water dispenser, and the container is for supplying water or another liquid in view of the teachings by Zhu, in order to provide safe and reliable drinking water.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (WO 2014/136382 A1) in view of Meneghin (EP 3702708 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Masuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 32. Further, Masuda discloses a step of reducing a temperature, but fails to explicitly disclose the step of reducing a temperature to a value between 3 °C and 10 °C.
However, Meneghin further teaches a blast chiller (refer to Figs. 1-2), comprising a step of reducing a temperature to a value between 3 °C and 10 °C (refer to Fig. 2), in order to guarantee the preservation of food products, and to reduce as much as possible the growth of bacteria and/or other biological microorganisms (refer to par. 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Masuda by providing a step of reducing a temperature to a value between 3 °C and 10 °C in view of the teachings by Meneghin, in order to guarantee the preservation of food products, and to reduce as much as possible the growth of bacteria and/or other biological microorganisms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in pages 6 and 7 that regarding claim 18, the combination of references does not teach an electrostatic current produced by an optimizer as a result of the optimizer being crossed by a flow of fluid circulating in a treatment chamber, because the references relied upon uses an electrode that is powered by a power source, such as, for example, Masuda's high voltage power supply (230), Nishimura's DC power supply (70), and Shibuya's voltage application unit (40), to produce a charge in an electrode, thus Masuda and the other references cited concern atomizer devices for generating electrostatically charged microdroplets of water using an electrically charged metal component connected to an electrical power source. Therefore, an important difference between the cited references and Claim 18 can be identified in the fact that according to Claim 18, the optimizing element is a cone that generates an electrostatic as a result of the optimizer being crossed by the flow of fluid circulating in the at least one treatment chamber. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Claim 18 as currently presented states “…wherein an electrostatic current is produced by the optimizer as a result of the optimizer being crossed by the flow of fluid circulating in the at least one treatment chamber” and absent a special definition, the words of the claims have been afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation. Specifically, there is no requirement for the electrostatic current being generated by a cone as a result of the cone being crossed by a flow of fluid circulating in the at least one treatment chamber. In turn, the optimizer disclosed by Masuda meets the limitation of the claim as discussed in the rejection above (the electrostatic current being produced by the high-voltage power supply circuit 230 in the optimizer, is produced as a result of fluid crossing the optimizer in order to create the charged fine particle water containing radicals).
For at least the reasons disclosed above, claims 18-34 remain rejected.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763