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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner notes that withdrawn claims 15-18 and 20-24 should be marked (withdrawn) within the claim set.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
The controller in claim 1, with the function being to control passage of steam to and through the aperture in at least one combined cycle. The corresponding structure described in the specification is a suitably programmed computer or a suitably arranged electronic circuit.
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
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 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.
The term “relatively” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is therefore unknown how high or low the pressure needs to be.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillery et al. (US Patent 8959721) hereafter referred to as Fillery, in view of Lederman et al. (US Patent 3345992) hereafter referred to as Lederman, and in view of Beard et al. (US Patent 4383538) hereafter referred to as Beard.
Regarding claim 1, Fillery teaches a steaming apparatus (Figure 1) for fodder that includes lances (2) with apertures (4) that rise from the floor of the manifold (1) that release steam into an open topped volume, where animal fodder is supported by the floor.
Fillery does not teach a body comprising an upper part and a lower part configured to be placed together to form a chamber in which animal fodder may be placed, a controller arranged to control passage of steam to and through the aperture in at least one combined cycle comprising: a low-pressure phase in which the controller allows steam to pass to and through the aperture into the chamber at a relatively low pressure; a high-pressure phase in which the controller allows steam to pass to and through the aperture into the chamber at a relatively high pressure; and such that each combined cycle of the at least one combined cycle includes the low-pressure phase followed by the high-pressure phase.
Lederman teaches a steaming apparatus for tobacco that includes a body or chamber (11) that defines a chamber in which animal fodder may be placed, which comprises an upper and lower part which together make the chamber, the lower part being a floor. Lederman teaches that the steaming of the apparatus consists of a combined cycle (Figure 5) that includes a low pressure phase (C) and a high pressure phase (E) which excessive waste is eliminated and a uniformly treated product is obtained (Column 1, Lines 52-56) which is only possible due to the volume of space where the fodder is steamed is an enclosed space and therefore not at atmospheric pressure.
Beard teaches a device for steaming tobacco that controls the flow of steam through the probe assembly (12) through conventional sensing means and control circuits (Column 5, Lines 36-41).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the sealable chamber disclosed in Lederman to the steaming apparatus of Fillery to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Lederman, the motivation for the combination would be to reduce waste and create a uniformly treated product.
As Fillery does not teach a device for controlling the steam while Lederman teaches using low and high pressure phases while Beard teaches controlling the flow of steam through conventional sensing means and control circuits, It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the combined cycle of Lederman and the conventional sensing means and control circuits of Beard to control the device of Fillery to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Beard the motivation for doing so would be to control the activation of the flow of steam to improve the quality of the steaming (Column 4, Lines 11-12) while ensuring based on Lederman to ensure a completely treated product (Column 1, Lines 52-56).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the modified device of Fillery teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a first or second valve arranged to open and close thereby allowing and preventing steam to pass from the aperture, and wherein the controller is arranged to open the valve to allow steam to pass to and through the aperture in the low-pressure phase and in the high-pressure phase of each combined cycle of the at least one combined cycle.
Beard teaches including cut-off valves in the steam lines (68) assorted with the different apertures or probes (12) in order to prevent loss of steam (Column 11, Lines 42-58) which are controlled by conventional sensing means and control circuits (Column 5, Lines 36-41).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the additional cut off valves of Beard in the steaming apparatus of Fillery to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Beard, the motivation for the combination would be to prevent accidental introduction of steam when not appropriate.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillery as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Shulz et al. (US Patent 3818819) hereafter referred to as Shulz.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Fillery with respect to claim 3 teaches opening and closing the valves in order to allow for steam to flow through them but does not teach opening the first valve and the second valve simultaneously to allow steam to pass to and through the first aperture and the second aperture in the low-pressure phase; and opening the first valve and the second valve sequentially to allow steam to pass to and through the first aperture and the second aperture sequentially in the high-pressure phase.
Shulz teaches a pressure cooking system with steam (Figure 1) that includes multiple valves (22, 24, 28, and 30) where at one point in time two of the valves (28 and 30) are opened at the same time (Column 3, Lines 50-52), and another point in time the valves (28 and 30) are controlled separately (Column 3, Lines 28-40).
As Shulz teaches controlling valves both individually and as a group in different scenarios, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try both options in both the low pressure phase and the high pressure phase in an attempt to create a better and more uniform product as a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillery as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Cheng et al. (US Publication 20140348987) hereafter referred to as Cheng, and Lawford et al. (US Patent 3745001) hereafter referred to as Lawford.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Fillery teaches all of the limitations regarding claim 4, and a boiler or a water reservoir that heat water to above the boiling point (20)
Fillery does not teach that the controller receives the steam pressure signal that measures steam pressure or that in the high pressure cycle the first and second valves open to allow steam to pass thorough the apertures when the steam pressure is above an upper pressure threshold and close the valves when it is below a lower pressure threshold (Claim 5), or a boiler (Claim 6) where the steam pressure sensor is located.
Cheng teaches (Figure 16) a steam cooker that includes an electronically controlled valve that allows steam to pass through that is controlled from an electronic signal from the controller [0136].
As the modified device of Fillery teaches shutoff valves for controlling the flow of steam but does not teach how to control them and Cheng teaches controlling the opening and closing of valves based on signals from the controller, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the capability of the valves to open and close based on measurements from a sensor such as a pressure sensor in order to control the shutoff valves and therefore the steam flowing through them.
Lawford teaches liquid level indicator for a boiler with a static pressure sensor (Figure 4) on the top of the boiler which would measure the pressure of the steam created by the boiler.
Because the modified device of Fillery teaches a boiler, and Lawford teaches a boiler which produces steam with a pressure sensor, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include the pressure sensor taught by Lawford in the boiler of Fillery to achieve the predictable result measuring the pressure of the generated steam for use by the controller disclosed by Cheng.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillery as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Jellema et al. (US Publication 2019/0200652) hereafter referred to as Jellema.
Regarding claims 7-9, Fillery teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, but does not teach a temperature sensor that provides a measure of the temperature within the chamber or controlling the passage of steam based on reading from that sensor.
Jellema teaches a steamer for animal food (Figure 1) that contains a temperature sensor (56) on the upper side of the tunnel (6) that can control the amount of steam injected through the steam inlet (28) [0049].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the capabilities of the temperature sensor disclosed in Jellema in the steaming device of Fillery in order to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Jellema, the motivation for the combination would be to control the steam injected into the container through the measurements of the temperature sensor.
As it is known that liquids such as water have a lower boiling point at lower pressures and have a higher boiling point at higher pressures, the temperature of the steam is related to the pressure of the steam, so higher temperature steam is of greater pressure as evidenced by the ideal gas law.
Regarding claim 10, Fillery teaches that the combined steaming cycle of Lederman (Figure 5) includes a final low pressure phase (G-H-I) where steam passes into the chamber at a relatively low pressure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The modified device of Lederman does not teach the limitation “wherein the controller is arranged to control passage of the steam to and through the first and second apertures in the high pressure phases of successive combined cycles of the at least one combined cycle such that the value of the upper pressure threshold alternates between a first upper pressure threshold and a second, different upper pressure threshold”
Xiao et al. (US Patent 8616157) hereafter referred to as Xiao teaches a boiler with a method of controlling the pressure of the steam produced through setting a first, a second, and a third set temperatures, but not alternating between them rather moving from one to the other and never back to the previous one. Xiao also does not teach pressure thresholds rather temperature targets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights