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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 3:
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this case, claim 1 describes a lowered position of the filter assembly, wherein the filter is immersed within the cooking oil in the fry pot, and wherein the filter assembly is connected to (i.e., held) by the suction line. Since an accepted meaning for “suspend” includes “to hang so as to be free on all sides except at the point of support”, and since the term has not been clearly redefined, claim 3, which recites that the filter assembly is suspended in the fry pot, fails to further limit claim 1.
Claim 5:
“a liner actuator” should be “a [[liner]]linear actuator” [para. 0061]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8:
“a liner actuator” in line 1 should be “a [[liner]]linear actuator” [para. 0061]. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner will interpret line 1 as reciting a linear actuator so as to avoid any 112b issues with “the linear actuator” in line 6.
Claim 10:
“a chamber having cooking zone located at a first end” in line 2 should be “a chamber having a cooking zone located at a first end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23:
“a liner actuator” in line 1 should be “a [[liner]]linear actuator” [para. 0061]. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner will interpret line 1 as reciting a linear actuator so as to avoid any 112b issues with “the linear actuator” in line 7.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2, 11, and 18:
The term “substantially” in “wherein the filter assembly is configured to be substantially vertically oriented in the fry pot” is used by the claims to mean that the filter assembly has a central axis "A" which is offset at an angle "a" with a vertical a plane "P", wherein the angle "a" is within a range of between +/- 20° from vertical [fig. 3C; para. 0046].
Claim 13:
The term “majority” in “wherein a majority of the filter is positioned within the cold zone” is used by the claim to mean 50% or more [para. 0059].
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 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, e.g., section, interface, unit) 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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claims 4 and 19:
the limitation “telescopic section” that provides for vertical movement of the filter assembly relative to the fry pot, is being interpreted as a slide member 148 slideably received within a stationary member 150, and equivalents thereof [figs. 1-4; para. 0052].
Claims 7 and 22:
the limitation “human machine interface” wherein a low suction pressure notification is generated, is being interpreted as a visual indicator (e.g., lights), an audible indicator, and equivalents thereof [fig. 7: 172; para. 0065].
Claims 9 and 24:
the limitation “batch filter unit” for batch filtration of a volume of oil in a fry pot (i.e., the filtration of the entire contents of the fry pot while the fryer is not being used to cook food), is being interpreted as removable batch filter assembly 44 of a batch oil filtration system/loop 46, a holding tank 48, drain 74, pump 92, valves (e.g., 104 and 76), lines (e.g., 80, 96, 100, 108), ports (e.g., 78, 94, 98, 102, 106), and equivalents thereof [fig. 7; para. 0033].
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(b)
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23,
the limitations “a lowered position” and “a raised position” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations are intended to be distinct from the lowered position and the raised position recited in claim 20. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 23 as reciting “[[a]]the lowered position” and “[[a]]the raised position”
the limitations “the controller” configured to monitor “the suction pressure” in the inlet line, lack sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 23 as referring to the controller of claim 22 and the suction pressure measured by the suction pressure sensor of claim 21.
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.
Claims 1-3, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens `344 (US 20090107344 A1) in view of Chung (KR 20050081986 A).
Regarding claim 1,
Bivens `344 discloses:
A fryer for cooking comestibles [para. 0035: “In the illustrated embodiment, container 12 is a deep fat fryer tank with cooking oil 14 for frying foods therein.”], the fryer comprising:
a fry pot having a chamber configured to hold a volume of cooking oil for cooking comestibles [fig. 3: container 12, cooking oil 14]; and
an oil filtration system for filtering the cooking oil [figs. 1-5: liquid filtering system 10], comprising:
a filter assembly including a filter [fig. 6: filter assembly 18] connected to a suction line [fig. 3: suction tube 56], the filter assembly being movable [i.e., removable] between
a lowered position wherein the filter [fig. 3: 18] is immersed within the cooking oil [i.e., during filtering while food is being cooked; para. 0065: “Liquid filtering system 10 may be operated in a continuous manner for filtering the cooking oil 14 while the oil is kept at cooking temperature, and while food is being cooked in container 12.”] and
a raised position wherein the filter [i.e., filter assembly 18] is removed from the cooking oil [i.e., to be cleaned, serviced, or replaced; para. 0052]; and
pump having an inlet port and an outlet port [fig. 1: pump 58],
the inlet port being fluidly connected with the suction line of the filter assembly by an inlet line to receive filtered cooking oil from the filter assembly [i.e., see fig. 1, showing the bottom port of pump 58 arranged to receive filtered cooking oil by suction lines (i.e., tubes 56 and 59)] and
the outlet port being fluidly connected to the fry pot with a return line to direct filtered cooking to the chamber of the fry pot [i.e., see fig. 1, showing the upper port of pump 58 arranged to direct the filtered cooking oil with return lines (i.e., tubes 62)], the pump being configured to apply a vacuum to the filter assembly to draw unfiltered cooking oil from the fry pot and through the filter assembly for filtering and to pump the filtered cooking oil back to the chamber of the fry pot [i.e., pump 58 creates negative pressure to draw cooking oil; para. 0062]
However, although the filter assembly 18 is movable, the tubes are not movable, and thus Bivens `344 does not disclose a configuration that would be capable of applying the vacuum to the filter assembly while the filter assembly is moved. Specifically, Bivens `344 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the pump is configured to apply the vacuum to the filter assembly while the filter assembly is moved between the lowered position and the raised position.
Chung, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., a configuration of an oil filtration system; p. 1: “The present invention relates to a edible oil filtration device used for the purpose of refining edible oil mainly used for frying in catering establishments, frying establishments, chicken establishments, etc.”], teaches a movable filter assembly [see fig. 3, showing metal filter disk 20 in a lowered position and in a raised position], wherein the configuration of the pump [i.e., the configuration described in figs. 1 and 3, and p. 3; including at least movable lines 30, 31, 35, 37, 50, 51] is a conventional structure that is easy to use [p. 2], and predictably allows for moving the filter assembly [p. 3: “By this, the user can lift the metal filter disc 20 from the reservoir 20 using the handle 35a as shown in FIG. 3, and also use the handle 53a to remove the metal filter disc 20. You can change the location”].
Therefore, because both Bivens `344 and Chung teach a configuration of an oil filtration system for moving a filter assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute one configuration for another [e.g., at least the various fittings/connections used in, and/or the arrangement thereof] to achieve the predictable result of moving the filter between the lowered position and the raised position. Furthermore, in view of Chung teaching the obvious motivation of maximizing the amount of edible oil recovered by repeating the filtration process (pp. 3-4), and since Chung’s configuration includes a pump configuration that is capable of applying the vacuum to the filter assembly while it is being moved, Bivens `344 in view of Chung suggests wherein the pump is configured to apply the vacuum to the filter assembly while the filter assembly is moved, e.g., in order to recover any edible oil remaining in the filter assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Bivens `344 in view of Chung discloses the fryer of claim 1.
Bivens `344 discloses:
wherein the filter assembly is configured to be substantially vertically oriented in the fry pot [see fig. 5].
Regarding claim 3, Bivens `344 in view of Chung discloses the fryer of claim 1.
Bivens `344 discloses:
wherein the filter assembly is suspended in the fry pot [i.e., held in a position] by the suction line [para. 0046: “Accordingly filter assemblies 18 are held in vertical positions in container 12.”].
Regarding claim 17,
Bivens `344 discloses:
A fryer for cooking comestibles [para. 0035: “In the illustrated embodiment, container 12 is a deep fat fryer tank with cooking oil 14 for frying foods therein.”], the fryer comprising:
a fry pot having a chamber configured to hold a volume of cooking oil for cooking comestibles [fig. 3: container 12, cooking oil 14]; and
an oil filtration system for filtering the cooking oil [figs. 1-5: liquid filtering system 10], comprising:
a filter assembly [fig. 6: filter assembly 18] disposed within the fry pot such that a filter of the filter assembly is immersed within the cooking oil [i.e., filter assembly 18 is immersed within the cooking oil 14 during filtering while food is being cooked; para. 0065: “Liquid filtering system 10 may be operated in a continuous manner for filtering the cooking oil 14 while the oil is kept at cooking temperature, and while food is being cooked in container 12.”], the filter assembly including a suction line [fig. 3: suction tube 56] having a first end connected to the filter [i.e., tube 56 connected to the filter via manifold block 46; fig. 6; para. 0050] and a second end positioned outside the fry pot [see fig. 3]; and
a pump having an inlet port and an outlet port [fig. 1: pump 58], the inlet port being fluidly connected to the second end of the suction line of the filter assembly by an inlet line to receive filtered cooking oil from the filter assembly [i.e., see fig. 1, showing the bottom port of pump 58 arranged to receive filtered cooking oil by suction lines (i.e., tubes 56 and 59)] and the outlet port being fluidly connected to the fry pot with an outlet line to return filtered cooking to the chamber of the fry pot [i.e., see fig. 1, showing the upper port of pump 58 arranged to direct the filtered cooking oil with return lines (i.e., tubes 62)];
the pump being configured to circulate the cooking oil through the oil filtration system [i.e., the continuous operation of system 10; para. 0065] by applying a vacuum to the filter assembly to draw unfiltered cooking oil held in the chamber of the fry pot through the filter assembly for filtering and pumping filtered cooking oil back to the chamber of the fry pot [i.e., pump 58 creates negative pressure to draw cooking oil; para. 0062].
However, although Bivens `344 discloses the filter assembly 18 includes suction tube 56 having a first end connected to the filter and a second end positioned outside the container 12, and is movable between a lowered position and a raised position [i.e., for cleaning, service, or replacement; paras. 0052, 0065], the flow of circulated oil is downward, thus Bivens `344 does not disclose a configuration wherein the flow of oil is upward through the top opening of the container 12. Specifically, Bivens `344 does not explicitly disclose:
the suction line extends from the first end upwardly through a top opening of the fry pot to the second end.
Chung, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., a configuration of an oil filtration system; p. 1: “The present invention relates to a edible oil filtration device used for the purpose of refining edible oil mainly used for frying in catering establishments, frying establishments, chicken establishments, etc.”], teaches a movable filter assembly [see fig. 3, showing metal filter disk 20 in a lowered position and in a raised position], wherein the configuration of the pump [i.e., the configuration described in figs. 1 and 3, and p. 3; including at least movable lines 30, 31, 35, 37, 50, 51] is a conventional structure that is easy to use [p. 2], and predictably allows for moving the filter assembly [p. 3: “By this, the user can lift the metal filter disc 20 from the reservoir 20 using the handle 35a as shown in FIG. 3, and also use the handle 53a to remove the metal filter disc 20. You can change the location”].
Therefore, because both Bivens `344 and Chung teach a configuration of an oil filtration system for moving a filter assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute one configuration for another [e.g., at least the various fittings/connections used in, and/or the arrangement thereof] to achieve the predictable result of moving the filter between the lowered position and the raised position, wherein the suction line extends from the first end upwardly through a top opening of the fry pot to the second end [see fig. 1 showing that a suction line may extend upwardly through a top opening of a fry pot while predictably allowing oil to flow therethrough in the filtration process).
Regarding claim 18, Bivens `344 in view of Chung discloses the fryer of claim 17.
Bivens `344 discloses:
wherein the filter assembly is configured to be substantially vertically oriented in the fry pot [see fig. 5].
Claims 4 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens `344 (US 20090107344 A1) in view of Chung (KR 20050081986 A) as respectively applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Lorenz (EP 0143885 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Bivens `344 in view of Chung discloses the fryer of claim 1.
However, Bivens `344 as modified by Chung does not disclose:
wherein the inlet line of the oil filtration system includes a telescopic section that provides for vertical movement of the filter assembly relative to the fry pot.
Lorenz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a telescopic section [fig, 1: hangar 35] comprising a tube 26 with a fastening end 28 that is slidably received by a portion 27 of pipe 25 [fig. 2; p. 4: “Adjoining the chamber-like space 18 of the oil conveyor 14 is a riser pipe 25 with a circular cross section, the front bent portion of which --> 27 for releasably accommodating the fastening end 28 of an extension tube 26 is formed. If necessary, the fastening end 28 can also be held in the region 27 by a press fit.”] that provides for vertical movement [e.g., an adjustment of the height of filter 30 to accommodate different container 11 heights; see figs. 1 and 2; p. 4].
Therefore, because both Chung and Lorenz teach a configuration of an inlet line that provides for vertical movement of a filter assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute one configuration for another [e.g., at least the various fittings/connections used in, and/or the arrangement thereof] such that the inlet line of the oil filtration system includes a telescopic section, to achieve the predictable result of vertical movement of the filter assembly relative to the fry pot.
Regarding claim 19, Bivens `344 in view of Chung discloses the fryer of claim 17.
However, Bivens `344 as modified by Chung does not disclose:
wherein the inlet line of the oil filtration system includes a telescopic section that provides for vertical movement of the filter assembly relative to the fry pot.
Lorenz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a telescopic section [fig, 1: hangar 35] comprising a tube 26 with a fastening end 28 that is slidably received by a portion 27 of pipe 25 [fig. 2; p. 4: “Adjoining the chamber-like space 18 of the oil conveyor 14 is a riser pipe 25 with a circular cross section, the front bent portion of which --> 27 for releasably accommodating the fastening end 28 of an extension tube 26 is formed. If necessary, the fastening end 28 can also be held in the region 27 by a press fit.”] that provides for vertical movement [e.g., an adjustment of the height of filter 30 to accommodate different container 11 heights; see figs. 1 and 2; p. 4].
Therefore, because both Chung and Lorenz teach a configuration of an inlet line that provides for vertical movement of a filter assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute one configuration for another [e.g., at least the various fittings/connections used in, and/or the arrangement thereof] such that the inlet line of the oil filtration system includes a telescopic section, to achieve the predictable result of vertical movement of the filter assembly relative to the fry pot.
Regarding claim 20, Bivens `344 in view of Chung and Lorenz discloses the fryer of claim 19.
Bivens `344 discloses:
wherein the filter assembly is movable [i.e., removable] between a lowered position wherein the filter is immersed within the cooking oil [i.e., during filtering while food is being cooked; para. 0065: “Liquid filtering system 10 may be operated in a continuous manner for filtering the cooking oil 14 while the oil is kept at cooking temperature, and while food is being cooked in container 12.”] and a raised position wherein the filter is removed from the cooking oil [i.e., to be cleaned, serviced, or replaced; para. 0052].
Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens `344 (US 20090107344 A1) in view of Chung (KR 20050081986 A) and Lorenz (EP 0143885 A1) as respectively applied to claim 4 and 20 above, and further in view of Savage `497 (US 20070137497 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bivens `344 in view of Chung and Lorenz discloses the fryer of claim 4.
Bivens `344 discloses the manual activity of moving the filter assembly between the lowered position and the raised position.
However, although it has been held by the courts that it requires only ordinary skill in the art to provide an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity (see MPEP 2144.04, III.), Bivens `344 may not explicitly disclose:
a liner actuator configured to move the filter assembly between the lowered position and the raised position.
Savage, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an actuator configured to move a basket lift hanger 86 between lowered and raised positions [i.e., actuators 85; para. 0057-58: “In addition to the techniques described above, a fryer may also include an automatic basket lift for lifting a fry basket from the hot oil after a cooking cycle… The raising and lowering of each basket lift hanger is preferably separately controlled by the fryer controller. The basket lift hangers are raised and lowered by basket lift actuators 85.”], wherein the basket also acts as a filter [para. 0049: “The oil is filtered by the mesh and any filtering aids in the bottom portion of basket 50.”].
Therefore, because both Bivens `344 and Savage teach a configuration for moving a filter between lowered and raised positions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute one configuration for another [e.g., lifting mechanisms and corresponding structures] such that a linear actuator is configured to achieve the predictable result of moving the filter assembly between the lowered position and the raised position.
Regarding claim 23, Bivens `344 in view of Chung and Lorenz discloses the fryer of claim 20.
Bivens `344 discloses the manual activity of moving the filter assembly between the lowered position (wherein the filter is immersed within the cooking oil) [i.e., during filtering while food is being cooked; para. 0065: “Liquid filtering system 10 may be operated in a continuous manner for filtering the cooking oil 14 while the oil is kept at cooking temperature, and while food is being cooked in container 12.”] and the raised position (wherein the filter is removed from the cooking oil) [i.e., to be cleaned, serviced, or replaced; para. 0052].
However, although it has been held by the courts that it requires only ordinary skill in the art to provide an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity (see MPEP 2144.04, III.), Bivens `344 may not explicitly disclose:
a liner actuator configured to move the filter assembly between the lowered position and a raised position,
wherein the controller is configured to operate the oil filtration system as follows:
monitor the suction pressure in the inlet line; and
if the suction pressure drops below the first suction pressure value, operate the linear actuator to move the filter assembly from the lowered position to the raised position.
Savage, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an actuator configured to move a basket lift hanger 86 between lowered and raised positions [i.e., actuators 85; para. 0057-58: “In addition to the techniques described above, a fryer may also include an automatic basket lift for lifting a fry basket from the hot oil after a cooking cycle… The raising and lowering of each basket lift hanger is preferably separately controlled by the fryer controller. The basket lift hangers are raised and lowered by basket lift actuators 85.”], wherein the basket also acts as a filter [para. 0049: “The oil is filtered by the mesh and any filtering aids in the bottom portion of basket 50.”].
Therefore, because both Bivens `344 and Savage teach a configuration for moving a filter between lowered and raised positions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute one configuration for another [e.g., lifting mechanisms and corresponding structures] such that a linear actuator is configured to achieve the predictable result of moving the filter assembly between the lowered position and the raised position. Furthermore, since both Bivens `344 and Savage teach cleaning a filter, in view of Bivens `344 raising the filter assembly for cleaning, and Savage teaching checking for an abnormal pressure value so as to detect a clog due to a filter needing cleaning (para. 0036), Bivens `344 in view of Savage suggests wherein the controller is configured to operate the oil filtration system as follows: monitor the suction pressure in the inlet line; and if the suction pressure drops below the first suction pressure value, operate the linear actuator to move the filter assembly from the lowered position to the raised position.
Claims 6-8 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens `344 (US 20090107344 A1) in view of Chung (KR 20050081986 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Savage `497 (US 20070137497 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bivens `344 in view of Chung discloses the fryer of claim 1.
However, Bivens `344 and Chung do not disclose:
wherein the oil filtration system further comprises a suction pressure sensor configured to measure a suction pressure in the inlet line.
Savage, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a suction pressure sensor [fig. 1: pressure sensor 17 near the inlet and outlet of pump 16; para. 0035] configured to detect abnormal pressure which may indicate that a filter has been clogged [para. 0036: “A properly functioning pump will have a relatively dependable difference in pressure caused by the pump. In a situation in which either or both of the screens becomes clogged, the pump will have little pressure on the outlet, and thus may have a reading different from that pressure difference sensed during normal operation.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a suction pressure sensor configured to measure a suction pressure in the inlet line since Savage teaches this allows an alarm to be signaled, or the pump to be shut down, thereby extending the life of the fryer [para. 0036].
Regarding claim 7, Bivens `344 in view of Chung and Savage discloses the fryer of claim 6.
Bivens `344 as modified by Savage, specifically Savage further discloses:
further comprising a controller [i.e., controller 15a] operatively coupled to the oil filtration system and a human machine interface [i.e., the alarm] operatively coupled to the controller [i.e., controller 15a; para. 0036], the controller being configured to operate the oil filtration system as follows:
monitor the suction pressure in the inlet line [i.e., the sensors operably linked to the controller; para. 0036]; and
if the suction pressure drops below a first suction pressure value [i.e., a reading different from one sensed during normal operation; para. 0036], generate a low suction pressure notification at the human machine interface [i.e., the sound of the alarm].
Regarding claim 8, Bivens `344 in view of Chung and Savage discloses the fryer of claim 7.
Bivens `344 as modified by Savage, discloses:
further comprising a liner actuator configured to move the filter assembly between the lowered position and the raised position, wherein the controller is configured to operate the oil filtration system with the additional following steps:
if the suction pressure drops below the first suction pressure value, operate the linear actuator to move the filter assembly from the lowered position to the raised position.
Specifically, Savage further teaches an actuator configured to move a basket lift hanger 86 between lowered and raised positions [i.e., actuators 85; para. 0057-58: “In addition to the techniques described above, a fryer may also include an automatic basket lift for lifting a fry basket from the hot oil after a cooking cycle… The raising and lowering of each basket lift hanger is preferably separately controlled by the fryer controller. The basket lift hangers are raised and lowered by basket lift actuators 85.”], wherein the basket also acts as a filter [para. 0049: “The oil is filtered by the mesh and any filtering aids in the bottom portion of basket 50.”].
Therefore, because both Bivens `344 and Savage teach a configuration for moving a filter between lowered and raised positions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute one configuration for another [e.g., lifting mechanisms and corresponding structures] such that a linear actuator is configured to achieve the predictable result of moving the filter assembly between the lowered position and the raised position. Furthermore, since both Bivens `344 and Savage teach cleaning a filter, in view of Bivens `344 raising the filter assembly for cleaning, and Savage teaching checking for an abnormal pressure value so as to detect a clog due to a filter needing cleaning (para. 0036), Bivens `344 in view of Savage suggests operating the linear actuator to move the filter assembly from the lowered position to the raised position if the suction pressure drops below the first suction pressure value.
Regarding claim 21, Bivens `344 in view of Chung discloses the fryer of claim 17.
However, Bivens `344 and Chung do not disclose:
wherein the oil filtration system further comprises a suction pressure sensor configured to measure a suction pressure in the inlet line.
Savage, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a suction pressure sensor [fig. 1: pressure sensor 17 near the inlet and outlet of pump 16; para. 0035] configured to detect abnormal pressure which may indicate that a filter has been clogged [para. 0036: “A properly functioning pump will have a relatively dependable difference in pressure caused by the pump. In a situation in which either or both of the screens becomes clogged, the pump will have little pressure on the outlet, and thus may have a reading different from that pressure difference sensed during normal operation.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a suction pressure sensor configured to measure a suction pressure in the inlet line since Savage teaches this allows an alarm to be signaled, or the pump to be shut down, thereby extending the life of the fryer [para. 0036].
Regarding claim 22, Bivens `344 in view of Chung and Savage discloses the fryer of claim 21.
Bivens `344 as modified by Savage, specifically Savage further discloses:
further comprising a controller [i.e., controller 15a] operatively coupled to the oil filtration system and a human machine interface [i.e., the alarm] operatively coupled to the controller [para. 0036], the controller being configured to operate the oil filtration system as follows:
monitor the suction pressure in the inlet line [i.e., the sensors operably linked to the controller; para. 0036]; and
if the suction pressure drops below a first suction pressure value [i.e., a reading different from one sensed during normal operation; para. 0036], generate a low suction pressure notification at the human machine interface [i.e., the sound of the alarm].
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens `344 (US 20090107344 A1) in view of Chung (KR 20050081986 A) as respectively applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Bivens `927 (US 20070289927 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Bivens `344 in view of Chung discloses the fryer of claim 1.
Bivens `344 further teaches:
wherein the inlet line includes [Bivens `344 discloses the conventional practice of emptying the fryer by draining an entire batch of cooking oil, filtering and then pumping the filtered oil to the fryer (i.e., batch filtering, which interrupts cooking); para. 0009],
However, Bivens `344 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the inlet line includes a 2-way diverter valve fluidly connected to the batch filter unit by the batch filter line, wherein operation of the 2-way diverter valve places the batch filter unit in fluid communication with the inlet port of the pump.
Bivens `927, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a 2-way diverter valve [fig. 8: directional valve 166] fluidly connected to a batch filter unit by a batch filter line [see fig. 8, showing valve 166 connected to container 56, pump 58, filter 60, and lines 62/64/68/70].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a 2-way diverter valve fluidly connected to a batch filter unit by a batch filter line since Bivens `927 teaches this facilitates a batch filtering of the entire contents of the fryer to be done [para. 0038]. Furthermore, in view of Bivens `344 disclosing it is known to batch filter the cooking oil [para. 0009] and that the flow of oil to be pumped is directed by valves 60 [fig. 1; para. 0052], and in view of Bivens `927 teaching that the diverter valve may be used so as to selectively enable either repeated filtering cycles [para. 0040] or refilling of the fryer [e.g., at the conclusion of the batch filtering process; para. 0043], Bivens `344 in view of Bivens `927 suggests wherein operation of the 2-way diverter valve places the batch filter unit in fluid communication with the inlet port of the pump [specifically, the pump 58 of Bivens `344].
Regarding claim 24, Bivens `344 in view of Chung discloses the fryer of claim 17.
Bivens `344 further teaches:
wherein the inlet line includes [Bivens `344 discloses the conventional practice of emptying the fryer by draining an entire batch of cooking oil, filtering and then pumping the filtered oil to the fryer (i.e., batch filtering, which interrupts cooking); para. 0009],
However, Bivens `344 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the inlet line includes a 2-way diverter valve fluidly connected to the batch filter unit by the batch filter line, wherein operation of the 2-way diverter valve places the batch filter unit in fluid communication with the inlet port of the pump.
Bivens `927, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a 2-way diverter valve [fig. 8: directional valve 166] fluidly connected to a batch filter unit by a batch filter line [see fig. 8, showing valve 166 connected to container 56, pump 58, filter 60, and lines 62/64/68/70].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a 2-way diverter valve fluidly connected to a batch filter unit by a batch filter line since Bivens `927 teaches this facilitates a batch filtering of the entire contents of the fryer to be done [para. 0038]. Furthermore, in view of Bivens `344 disclosing it is known to batch filter the cooking oil [para. 0009] and that the flow of oil to be pumped is directed by valves 60 [fig. 1; para. 0052], and in view of Bivens `927 teaching that the diverter valve may be used so as to selectively enable either repeated filtering cycles [para. 0040] or refilling of the fryer [e.g., at the conclusion of the batch filtering process; para. 0043], Bivens `344 in view of Bivens `927 suggests wherein operation of the 2-way diverter valve places the batch filter unit in fluid communication with the inlet port of the pump [specifically, the pump 58 of Bivens `344].
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens `344 (US 20090107344 A1) in view of Savage `497 (US 20070137497 A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Bivens `344 discloses:
A fryer for cooking comestibles [para. 0035: “In the illustrated embodiment, container 12 is a deep fat fryer tank with cooking oil 14 for frying foods therein.”], the fryer comprising:
a fry pot including a chamber [fig. 3: container 12, cooking oil 14] having
cooking zone located at a first end of the chamber of the fry pot [see figs. 1 and 4, showing a cooking zone directly above heating element 16] and
a cold zone located at an opposite second end of the chamber of the fry pot [see figs. 1 and 4, showing a cold zone occupied by the filter assemblies, furthermore, in view of Bivens `344 disclosing that the number of filter assemblies is variable in order to adjust filtering capacity (para. 0068), and that the cooking zone and cold zone can be further defined by a heat shield 42 (figs. 12-13; paras. 0054-0060), Bivens `344 suggests the chamber arranged such that a singular cold zone is located at an end that is opposite to the cooking zone],
the cold zone and the cooking zone defining a volume of the chamber of the fry pot configured to hold cooking oil for cooking comestibles [fig. 3: cooking oil 14];
at least one heating element located in the cooking zone of the chamber of the fry pot [i.e., heating element 16];
a filter assembly [fig. 6: filter assembly 18] suspended within the fry pot [i.e., held in a position] by a suction line [fig. 3: suction tube 56] such that a filter of the filter assembly [fig. 3: 18] is partially positioned within the cold zone for filtering cooking oil [i.e., during filtering while food is being cooked, at least a portion of the filter assembly 18 is positioned in the cold zone, so as to filter the cooking oil; para. 0065: “Liquid filtering system 10 may be operated in a continuous manner for filtering the cooking oil 14 while the oil is kept at cooking temperature, and while food is being cooked in container 12.”].
However, although Bivens `344 discloses
the conventional practice of emptying the fryer by draining an entire batch of cooking oil, filtering and then pumping the filtered oil to the fryer [i.e., batch filtering, which interrupts cooking; para. 0009],
a pump fluidly connected with the suction line [see fig. 1, pump 58 connected to tube 56], and
food particles from a cooking zone degrading the cooking oil [para. 0007];
Bivens `344 does not explicitly disclose:
a crumb basket configured to be located in the cold zone of the chamber of the fry pot; and
Savage, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a crumb basket located in a cold zone [see figs. 3A and 3B, showing screen 14 in overflow portion 12, downstream from a cooking zone defined by vat 11 and heating element combustion system 18, and upstream from a pump 16].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the screen 14 of Savage with the fryer of Bivens `344, by locating it in the cold zone (upstream of any pumps in the flow path of cooking oil, and downstream of the cooking zone), such that the fryer comprises a crumb basket configured to be located in the cold zone of the chamber of the fry pot, since Savage teaches this prevents food particles from the cooking zone from causing the pump to clog [para. 0022: “This screen, which may be cleaned periodically, such as once or twice per day, helps to insure that food particles do not reach pump 16, and do not cause the pump to clog.”].
Regarding claim 11, Bivens `344 in view of Savage `497 discloses the fryer of claim 10.
Bivens `344 discloses:
wherein the filter assembly is configured to be substantially vertically oriented in the fry pot [see fig. 5].
Regarding claim 12, Bivens `344 in view of Savage `497 discloses the fryer of claim 10.
Bivens `344 as modified by Savage `497 discloses:
wherein the filter is positioned at least partially within the crumb basket.
In this case, since both Bivens `344 and Savage `497 both teach their respective filters/screens/strainers in the cold zone (i.e., to prevent charring of food particles, and, respectively, to prevent food particles from clogging a pump connected to a drain in the cold zone), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to try positioning the filter at least partially within the crumb basket (e.g., to maximize space), and since Savage `497 teaches that additional screens/strainers may be placed in-line upstream of the pump (e.g., strainer 16a or screen 13, wherein screen 13 is positioned at least partially within screen 14; see fig. 3A), a PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Bivens `344 in view of Savage `497 discloses the fryer of claim 10.
Bivens `344 discloses:
wherein a majority of the filter is positioned within the cold zone [see fig. 4].
Regarding claim 14, Bivens `344 in view of Savage `497 discloses the fryer of claim 10.
Bivens `344 as modified by Savage `497, specifically Savage `497 discloses:
wherein the cold zone extends downwardly from the cooking zone to form a deepest point of the fry pot [see figs. 3A and 3B, wherein a drain in the cold zone extends downwardly so as to connect to pump 16, forming the deepest point of the fryer (thereby facilitating draining of cooking oil)].
Regarding claim 15, Bivens `344 in view of Savage `497 discloses the fryer of claim 10.
Bivens `344 as modified by Savage `497, specifically Savage `497 discloses:
wherein the fry pot further includes a drain that extends from a base wall portion of the fry pot that defines the cold zone [see figs. 3A and 3B, wherein a drain in the cold zone extends downwardly from a base wall portion of the fry pot so as to connect to pump 16].
Regarding claim 16, Bivens `344 in view of Savage `497 discloses the fryer of claim 10.
Bivens `344 discloses:
wherein the filter is an envelope filter [para. 0016: “Each filter assembly includes a screen defining a filter pocket, a filter insert in the filter pocket, a drain bracket attached to the filter screen, and a drain fitting.”] that defines a pocket configured to receive a separator screen [fig. 9; para. 0040: “A filter insert 26 is inserted and contained within a pocket 23 of filter screen 22 when filter assembly 18 is assembled], the pocket of the filter being in fluid communication with the suction line [i.e., the pocket 23 being connected to tube 56 through drain bracket 38 and drain fitting 40; paras. 0045, 48-49].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761