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
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/1/2025.
In response to Applicant’s traversal the Examiner firstly notes that no actual argument traversing the restriction requirement was presented. Secondly in response to Applicant’s assumption that the Examiner has made a complete restriction requirement, as Applicant has also not pointed out anything missing from the restriction requirement, the restriction requirement is seen as complete. As such Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the restriction requirement is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 3 delete “the” before “heating” to place the claim in better form.
In line 8 insert “at least one” before “roasting apparatus” for consistency with the language of line 3.
In line 9, insert “removable” before “filtering device” for consistency with the language of lines 6-7.
In line 11, insert “at least one” before “downstream pressure sensor” for consistency with the language of line 10.
In line 12, insert “of” after “downstream” to place the claim in better form.
In line 14, delete “filtering” and insert “treating” for consistency with the language of line 5.
In line 15, insert “at least one” before “pressure sensor” for consistency with the language of lines 10-11.
In line 15, insert “of” after “downstream” and insert “at least one” before “removable filtering” for consistency with the language of lines 10-11.
In line 17, delete “the” before “drop” and insert “a” to place the claim in better form.
In line 17, delete “= P – Pref” before “compared” and insert “wherein ∆P = P – Pref,” after “pressure of reference Pref,” to place the claim in better form.
In line 19, insert “of” after “downstream” and insert “at least one” before “pressure sensor” for consistency with the language of lines 10-11.
Regarding claim 2, in line 1 delete “Method according to Claim” and insert “The method according to claim” to place the claim in better form.
In line 3 insert “at least one” before “roasting apparatus” and “,” after “roasting apparatus” to place the claim in better form.
In line 3, insert “the” after “initialization of” and insert “removable” before “filtering device” for consistency with the language of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, in line 2 insert “at least one” before “removable filtering device” for consistency with the language of claim 1.
In line 2, insert “,” after “disposable”.
Regarding claim 5, in line 3 insert “at least one upstream” before “pressure sensor being configured” for consistency.
In line 5, insert “at least one” before “pressure sensor being configured” for consistency.
Regarding claims 3-6, in line 1 of each claim delete “A method according to Claim” and insert “The method according to claim” in order to place the claims in better form.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2 and 6 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 2, the limitation “the step of operating the roasting apparatus in order to drive gas” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 only recites “operating at least the smoke driver to drive gas”, and does not implicitly require operating the roasting apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, in line 3 the term “several” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the term encompasses more than one value (e.g., 3 and 4), and which values are included (e.g., 3-4, 3-5, etc.) It is noted that the rejection can be overcome by amending the term to instead recite “a plurality of” or “at least two”.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tidland et al. (US 5,958,494) in view of Su (US 6,679,163 B1) and Johnsson (WO 2016/028211 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 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). The filters are placed between pressure sensors 70, the sensors being “upstream” and “downstream” of the respective filters (figure 2). The sensors measure pressure differentials across the filters, necessarily including “measuring the pressure P at…pressure sensor downstream…”, where measured pressure differentials are compared by a circuit in control panel 68 to determine if a filter is clogged. When the differential is above a threshold value, one of the lights 69 in control panel 68 turns on, identifying the respective filter is clogged (figure 1; column 4 lines 47-57). The activation of the light is construed to be "displaying an alarm".
Tildland et al. does not teach the filters being removable.
Su teaches a bean roasting device (abstract) comprising exhausting air generated during roasting through a filter F inserted in notch E2, where the filter can be replaced (figure 3s and 5; column 2 lines 64-67). The filter F can filter away oil fume and particles (column 3 lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least one filtering device of Tidland et al. to be removable in order to similarly allow replacement of the filtering device once it has become clogged to a point that hinders performance, and therefore to ensure optimal conditions for operation of the smoke filter and apparatus.
Tidland et al. does not teach calculating the drop of pressure ∆P compared to a pressure of reference Pref, where ∆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 the pressure sensor, and if said drop of pressure ∆P is inferior to said predetermined threshold ∆P0, then displaying the alarm.
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 (Pref) indicates the filter is completely missing (page 5 lines 18-21; page 8 lines 16-18 and 19-22), and generating an error message when the error has been detected (page 7 lines 19-20). The method minimizes risk of damage to downstream elements due to contamination (page 6 lines 7-9). The reference is considered to be analogous art since it is pertinent to the problem with which Applicant was concerned i.e., detection of whether or not 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 Tidland et al. to calculate, compare, and display an alarm as claimed since the reference already teaches issue detection based on pressure drop across the filters, since the prior art recognizes the process and associated pressure calculations for detecting the presence of a filter, and to similarly prevent damage or other undesired effects to downstream components (e.g., heater elements 54) due to contaminants present within the unfiltered gas.
Regarding claim 2, Tidland et al. teaches the process is a coffee beans roasting operation as stated for claim 1, and further teaches detection during said roasting operation (column 6 lines 45-50).
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 a predetermined fixed pressure (page 8 lines 16-18 and 19-27).
Regarding claim 5, Tidland et al. teaches at least one upstream sensor e.g., first sensor 70 with respect to filter 72 (figure 2), and indicating issues based on pressure drop across the filters as stated for claim 1. The combination teaches determining the presence or absence of a filter based on pressure drop, where a pressure drop that is below a predetermined threshold value indicates the filter is missing. The combination applied to claim 1 therefore uses the pressure detected by the respective upstream sensor as Pref to determine the pressure drop.
Regarding claim 6, 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, 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.
Conclusion
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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights