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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 18 insert “at least one” before “removable filtering device” for consistency with the language of line 6.
Regarding claim 3, in line 2 delete “the” after “able” and insert “to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allington et al. (US 7,285,300 B1) in view of Stordy et al. (US 2013/0276637 A1) and Johnsson (WO 2016/028211 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Allington et al. teaches an apparatus and method for roasting coffee beans comprising at least one roasting apparatus, said apparatus producing smoke during the heating of coffee beans (abstract), at least one smoke treating unit comprising primary filter 64 configured to treat at least a part of the flow of smoke produced by the at least one roasting apparatus (figure 4; column 13 lines 6-12 and 20-30), a smoke driver 48 configured to drive smoke from the at least one roasting apparatus to the filter 64 (figures 8-9; column 12 lines 39-42), an outlet downstream of the at least one removable filtering device, wherein the outlet releases filtered smoke inside an atmosphere of a room (column 14 lines 41-42; column 15 lines 20-28), the smoke treating unit comprises at least one downstream pressure sensor 156, said at least one downstream pressure sensor being configured to measure the pressure downstream of said filter 64 (column 14 lines 30-32), wherein the method comprises the steps of operating at least the smoke driver to drive gas through the smoke treating unit, and measuring the pressure P at the at least one downstream pressure sensor downstream of the filter (column 12 lines 39-42; column 14 lines 30-32).
Allington et al. does not teach the primary filter is removable.
Stordy et al. teaches an apparatus for roasting coffee beans (abstract) comprising roasting coffee beans in roasting chamber 12 and driving smoke from the roasting chamber to outlet 28 by fan 20, where the aperture may be closed by a filter configured to capture smoke in the airflow (figures 2-3; paragraphs 59-60). The filter module is associated with a means for measuring the rate at which air escapes through the filter e.g., by measuring pressure upstream of the fan, and when the rate of air escape drops below a predetermined threshold due to the filter becoming progressively more blocked over time, the control module operates an indicator that advises the user to change the filter (paragraph 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the primary filter of Allington et al. to be removable to allow filter replacement, thereby ensuring optimal performance, see also MPEP 2144.04V.C.
Allington et al. but does not teach calculating a drop of pressure ∆P compared to a pressure of reference Pref, wherein ∆P = P – Pref, comparing said drop of pressure ∆P to a predetermined threshold ∆P0 corresponding to the presence of said at least one removable filtering device upstream of the at least one pressure sensor, and if said drop of pressure ∆P is inferior to said predetermined threshold ∆P0, then displaying an alarm. It is noted the term “Pref” is not defined by the specification, and is therefore given its broadest reasonable interpretation to be any reference pressure with respect to the process.
Johnsson teaches a method for detection of errors relating to the fitting of a filter in a fuel system (abstract) comprising a control device that performs a comparison of a calculated pressure drop across the filter with a defined tolerance interval, where the calculated pressure drop falling below a minimum value of the interval indicates the filter is completely missing (page 5 lines 18-21; page 8 lines 16-22), and generating an error message when the error has been detected (page 7 lines 19-20). The calculated pressure drop across the filter is construed to read on ∆P = P – Pref, where P is the pressure after the filter and Pref is the pressure before the filter. The defined tolerance interval is construed to read on ∆P0. The method minimizes risk of damage to downstream elements due to contamination (page 6 lines 7-9). The reference is analogous art since it is pertinent to the problem with which applicant was concerned i.e., detection of whether a filter is present based on a calculated pressure drop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Allington et al. to calculate, compare, and display an alarm as claimed since the reference teaches measuring pressure drop across the filter and releasing the filtered gas into the surrounding atmosphere, since the prior art recognizes using pressure drop across a filter as a method to determine if the filter requires replacement and associated pressure calculations for detecting the presence of a filter, to prevent damage or other undesired effects to downstream components due to contaminants present within the unfiltered gas, and to minimize smoke particles released into the surroundings.
Regarding claim 2, Allington et al. teaches the smoke driver 48 is operated during a roasting operation (column 12 lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 3, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches a replaceable filter. The filter would have necessarily been at least one of “cleanable” or “disposable”.
Regarding claim 4, Johnsson as applied to claim 1 teaches Pref is an ambient pressure or a predetermined fixed pressure e.g., before a particular filter (page 8 lines 16-27).
Regarding claim 5, Allington et al. teaches upstream sensor 154 configured to measure the pressure of the flow of smoke upstream of the filter (figure 9; column 14 lines 30-32). Johnsson as applied to claim 1 teaches ∆P across the filter, where Pref is the upstream pressure as stated for said claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allington et al. in view of Stordy et al. and Johnsson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tidland et al. (US 5,958,494).
Regarding claim 6, Allington et al. does not teach a plurality of smoke treating units and an inlet ducting device to guide smoke emitted by the at least one roasting apparatus to at least one of the smoke treating units, an outlet ducting device to guide smoke treated by the smoke treating units to an outlet of the system, and wherein the at least one downstream pressure sensor is positioned to measure the pressure at said outlet ducting device.
Tidland et al. teaches a coffee bean roasting system comprising a filtering system through which exhaust from the roasting chamber is passed (abstract; column 1 lines 8-11), said system comprising at least one roasting apparatus having a roasting chamber 36, exhaust section 16, a smoke driver 30 configured to drive smoke from the roasting apparatus to a smoke treating unit, and the smoke treating unit comprising filters 72, 74, 76 and 78 configured to treat the smoke produced by the roasting apparatus (figures 2-3; column 3 lines 44-47; column 4 lines 22-26; column 5 lines 41-42 and 45-48). Tidland et al. teaches multiple filters, each filter configured to conduct and treat at least a part of the smoke through a dedicated path (figures 2 and 4; downward pointing arrows).
Regarding the inlet and outlet ducts as recited, Tidland et al. teaches the exhaust flows through exhaust section 16, which one of ordinary skill would recognize to be a type of “ducting device”. The section of duct before the respective filters is construed to be the “inlet ducting device” and the section after said filters is construed to be the “outlet ducting device”. The pressure sensors 70 are positioned in the “outlet ducting device” downstream of the respective filters (figures 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Allington et al. to comprise a plurality of smoke treating units, an inlet ducting, and an outlet ducting as claimed since the prior art recognizes the claimed structure for smoke treating devices, as a duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04VI.B., to increase smoke-treating capacity as necessary to scale with increased roasting volume, since ducting is well-known in the art as a means for containing and transporting gas, since there is no evidence of record indicating the particular location downstream of the filter is critical or yields unexpected results, and therefore as a matter of location preference for e.g., ease of access.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but the amendment to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Tidland et al. is no longer relied on for claim 1 and is replaced by Allington et al. which teaches a roasting process where the smoke is filtered and released to the atmosphere of a room as claimed. Likewise, Su et al. is no longer relied upon.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that Johnsson is non-analogous art and Examiner’s reasoning for considering Johnsson analogous art is based on hindsight since neither Tidland nor Su suggest detecting if a filter is present based on a calculated pressure drop.
This is not persuasive since it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefit of Johnsson’s detection method for filtering smoke from a roasting process. For example, smoke is known to contain oily and carcinogenic substances, where it would have been desirable to ensure a filter is present such that downstream components are not coated with said oily substances and individuals are not exposed to undesirable smoke components.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine with Johnsson since there is no expectation of smoke causing damage downstream of the filter in the same way that a fuel pump or injection system would be damaged.
This is not persuasive since one of ordinary skill would recognize shortcomings associated with a system that does not indicate when a necessary filter is missing. With respect to treating gas from roasting coffee, the prior art recognizes a replaceable filter for treating gas to remove smoke components. While downstream components may not necessarily be “damaged” from a missing smoke filter, one of ordinary skill would still recognize operating the system without a filter is undesirable due to oil and residue buildup on downstream components such as the heat exchanger, after-cooler, HEPA filter, and carbon filter of Allington et al. (figure 8), which would require additional cleaning/maintenance and therefore loss of operational efficiency.
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Moles (US 2007/0240328 A1) teaches a system where filter 70 is configured to be removable from dehydrator 70 so the user may clean or replace it as necessary to maintain the desired filtering properties (paragraph 35).
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 BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
