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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration of the amended abstract and Claim 4, all previous objections thereto are hereby withdrawn.
Upon consideration of the amended claims, all previous rejections thereof under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the Remarks that Deakin does not disclose the recited external optimization unit required by the amended Claim 4. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended Claim 4 recites “the pressure reference comes from an external optimization unit”. No structural or functional details of said external optimization unit are provided, nor are the means by which the pressure reference “comes” therefrom. Applicant argues on page 9, para. 2 (with emphasis added):
“Deakin’s pressure transducer is a sensor – a device that monitors and reports the actual pressure already present in the system. It is not a component that generates, sets, or supplies a target pressure reference for the PLC to pursue. By contrast, the amended claim requires an “external optimization unit” that is the source of the pressure reference – i.e., the component that determines and provides the target pressure value that the PLC then uses to control the flaking operation.”
Examiner notes that the underlined features of the instant invention, i.e. that the external optimization unit generates, sets, and/or determines a target reference pressure, are not recited in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Deakin states in para. [0049]:
“Additionally, the pressure transducer monitors what pressure is required to obtain a certain thickness. If the analyzer 201 determines the flakes are too thick, the PLC can direct the fixator 313 to extend the hydraulics by the required distance…Likewise, if the analyzer 201 determines the flakes are too thin, the fixator 313 can be directed to increase the gap.”
The required pressure is interpreted as the pressure reference. While Applicant is correct that the pressure transducer is monitoring the pressure already present in the system, it is also determining what pressure corresponds to the desired thickness of the flakes and in that way is essentially “generating” a pressure reference.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deakin (US 2022/0125080).
Regarding Claim 4, Deakin discloses (Figures 3-4) a grain flaking system ([0002] lns 1-2), comprising: flaking rollers (rollers 309); and a programmable logic controller ("PLC") ([0020] lns 6-7) configured to: obtain a pressure reference ([0049] lns 1-2: the required pressure is interpreted as the pressure reference), and control flaking pressure through the pressure reference obtained ([0049] lns 2-5: the PLC controls the flaking pressure based on the pressure required to obtain the desired flake thickness), wherein the pressure reference is defined based on characteristics of a grain to be flaked, wherein the pressure reference comes from an external optimization unit ([0049] lns 1-2: the pressure transducer is interpreted as the external optimization unit—see discussion above), wherein the characteristics of the grain to be flaked include moisture content and temperature of the grain to be flaked ([0018] lns 1-3, [0020] lns 4-9, [0056] lns 3-6), and additionally defined according to characteristics of a grain flake flaked by the flaking rollers, wherein one of the characteristics of the grain flake flaked by the flaking rollers is a thickness of the grain flake ([0024] lns 1-6, [0049] lns 1-5), and wherein the flaking pressure is controlled continuously and automatically ([0046] lns 4-6).
Regarding Claim 7, Deakin discloses (Figures 3-4) the flaking pressure is a pressure between the flaking rollers (rollers 309) during a flaking process ([0024] lns 3-5).
Regarding Claim 8, Deakin discloses (Figure 4) the flaking pressure is controlled through hydraulic actuators (fixator 313; [0046] lns 3-4), which move the flaking rollers (rollers 309; [0045] lns 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deakin as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Graeber et al., hereinafter Graeber (US 2020/0368755).
Regarding Claim 6, Deakin discloses the pressure reference is additionally defined according to values measured by pressure sensors ([0047] lns 1-4), hopper feed speed ([0060] lns 5-9), a distance between the rollers ([0043] lns 3-7), and temperature ([0065] lns 7-9).
Deakin does not disclose the pressure reference being defined by vibration. In the same field of endeavor, Graeber teaches a grain flaking system ([0001] lns 5-11) comprising: flaking rollers ([0002] lns 1-4), and a PLC ([0030] lns 25-26) configured to obtain a pressure reference ([0030] lns 17-26: the PLC adjusts the roller gap to optimize the grinding work, i.e. by adjusting the roller pressure to a predetermined pressure to obtain the desired results), wherein the pressure reference is defined according to vibration ([0026] lns 18-25: the rollers are equipped with at least one vibration sensor). It is important to monitor the vibration of the flaking rollers, as this can be indicative of the processed product adhering to the roller surfaces, which will negatively affect the flaking pressure and thus the end product ([0026] lns 47-51). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grain flaking system disclosed by Deakin such that the pressure reference is additionally defined according to vibration, as taught by Graeber, in order to prevent negative effects of flaked grain adhering to the surfaces of the flaking rollers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deakin as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Nevin et al, hereinafter Nevin (US 6,863,913, provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 9, Deakin discloses (Figure 4) hydraulic actuators (fixator 313; [0046] lns 3-4) controlled by the PLC ([0049] lns 3-5), but is silent to the specific structures thereof, i.e. valves controlling a flow of hydraulic fluid. In the same field of endeavor, Nevin teaches a grain flaking system (col. 1 lns 10-12) comprising flaking rollers (col. 6 lns 1-2), a PLC (col. 4 ln 26), and valves that control a flow of hydraulic fluid to hydraulic actuators (col. 6 lns 44-51), wherein the valves are controlled by the PLC (col. 6 lns 54-56). As this is a known configuration for hydraulic actuators which move the flaking rollers in a grain flaking system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grain flaking system disclosed by Deakin such that it further comprises valves that control a flow of hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic actuators, wherein the valves are controlled by the PLC, as taught by Nevin, in order to operate the hydraulic actuators.
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 TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights