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. Claim status 2. In response to the amendments filed 12/01/2025, claim 12 is withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Therefore, claims 1-12 are currently pending and claims 1-11 are elected for examination. Claim Interpretation 3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “smoke treating unit configured to – corresponding to element 3 in Fig. 3 ”, “dismountable smoke collecting device configured to - corresponding to element 21 in Fig. 1 ”, and “smoke treating units being configured to - corresponding to elements 3 in Fig. 3” in claims 1 and 9-10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6. 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. 7 . Claims 1-11 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. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "method to check a roasting system” renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear whether “to check” means verify a component presence, detect fault, verify operational status, etc. which makes the scope of the method uncertain. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 1, the phrase "observing at least one behavior of the monitored temperature along time” renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear what “behavior” of a temperature is intended to mean and thus the scope of the limitation is not clear . See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outlet " in line 8 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the number of operated roasters" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1. Claims 2-10 are also indefinite because they depend on a base claim that is indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter 8 . Claims 1-11 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. Reasons for Allowance 9. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims are allowed because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination “ smoke treating unit configured to treat the flow of smoke produced by the roasting apparatus, said smoke treating unit comprising: at least one smoke filtering device , a dismountable smoke collecting device configured to collect smoke from the outlet of the roasting apparatus … observing at least one behaviour of the monitored temperature along time, comparing said at least one observed behaviour of the monitored temperature with a predetermined behaviour of temperature corresponding to the presence of the dismountable smoke collecting device inside the smoke treating unit ” in combination with the remaining elements of the claimed limitation. Considering the claims, the best prior art found during examination is Tubergen et al. ( US 2022/0032226 ) which temperature controlled exhaust stream cyclonic water chiller-separator of the present invention 10 , which includes a vertically oriented treatment chamber or tower 12 having an upper cylindrical portion 14 , a medial conical portion 16 terminating in a lower cylindrical portion 18 , a lid 20 atop the upper cylindrical portion, a chimney 22 disposed through the lid and may have a fan or blower 24 (not shown but understood) either operatively coupled at its outlet 26 or internally incorporated, and which supplements the modest natural draft or stack effect for short chimneys to pull the exhaust stream upwardly and out from the treatment tower to vent flue gas directly to atmosphere. The input fan pushes or pulls air out of the roaster and then pushes that air into the cyclone, so there is constant positive pressure moving that air. In embodiments, a fan can be installed somewhere above the cyclone can be provided to constantly draw air through the roaster and into the cyclone chiller-separator [00 36 ], a blower 32 which pulls and/or drives an exhaust stream from a coffee roaster into the treatment tower. The exhaust stream conduit 28 angles downwardly relative to the treatment tower 12 at approximately 5 degrees to enable water condensation to run back into the treatment tower. The treatment tower itself is secured in an upright position by vertical supports 34 coupled to the tower with braces 36 . Either configuration is contemplated: either a single blower/fan 24 on the terminal (exhaust) end of the system of with two blowers/fans 24 , 32 , the latter on the front (exhaust input) end of the system. The blowers/fans are configured to create very little pressure drop, and thus to minimize or fully eliminate any potentially adverse effect on the roasting process. In the first configuration, the system creates an advantage for roaster air flow, inasmuch as a single blower on the end of the exhaust stack can be used to pull air through the entire roast process. Because the system remains clean from the exhaust inlet 28 through the cyclone and out to the final exhaust outlet 26 , the blower can be placed outside the roast room on a roof or wall where it will create little noise and assure negative pressure along the entire air path. But it will be understood that the thermal blower/fan is an optional supplement to the blower/fan invariably found inside a roaster or as the sole source of air movement for the roast exhaust air. Summarily, a roaster may include a single inlet fan, 32 , pushing air into the cyclone; or the roaster can have a single outlet fan 24 at the exhaust outlet 26 of the outlet stack to be the sole source of air movement [00 37 ] and exhaust from a coffee roaster is “pushed” into the inlet of the treatment system via a blower on or shortly after the roaster output flue and the treated smoke and odor are also “pulled through” the output at the chimney of the system by an exhaust stack termination blower. This enhances airflow exiting the roaster and increases the velocity of the treated air flowing through the system exhaust stack. This operational scheme potentially eliminates the need for an external chaff cyclone on the coffee roaster, as the inventive treatment system becomes the collection area for roasting process byproduct chaff [00 4 7] . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion 10 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3696 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00am-5:00PM . 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, Davetta Goins can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2957 . 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. /MOHAMED BARAKAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689