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
Amendments to the drawings and to claims 1, 7, 9; cancellation of claim 17 and addition of new claim 21 are noted.
The amendments/arguments overcome the drawing objections, the claim objections, and claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim interpretation of “brix reading apparatus” under 35 USC 112(f) has been considered, but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that “brix reading apparatus” includes sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions.
The office respectfully disagrees. The office is of the position that the limitation does not include any structure, as “apparatus” is a generic placeholder. Therefore, the limitation is equivalent to reciting an apparatus (generic placeholder for means) for reading brix (function). The interpretation of the limitation under 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 16-19, filed 07 November 2025, with respect to the prior art rejections under 35 USC 103, in light of the claim amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of housing” (in limitation beginning “a depressurizing tank”) should be –of the (or said) housing—
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 1-12 and 21 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.
Claim 1 recites “a liquid” in the preamble, and later “the liquid”, “a liquid”, and “the liquid”. The relationship(s) between the recited liquids is unclear. The office recommends reciting “a concentrated liquid” for the initial recitation referring to expelling liquid from the housing, “a feed liquid” for the initial recitation referring to receiving liquid into the housing, and “the concentrated liquid” and “the feed liquid”, respectively, for subsequent recitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The amendments to claim 1 are considered to patentably distinguish over the prior art, particularly with respect to the recirculation circuit limitations, including a recirculation pump in fluid communication with the bottom outlet opening of the housing and with a main outlet and recirculation pipe, the main outlet and recirculation pipe being in fluid communication with the housing for recirculating at least a portion of the liquid expelled from the housing back into the housing, the main outlet and recirculation pipe being provided with a valve allowing withdrawal of a portion of the liquid circulating in the main outlet and recirculation pipe, considered as a whole with the entirety of the claimed system.
As noted by Applicant in their arguments (see pp. 16-18), Chen, the closest prior art, discloses discharge of the entirety of the condensed product from the falling film evaporator and therefore does not disclose or suggest recirculating the liquid. Furthermore, given that Chen is directed to a multi-effect distillation system, there does not appear to be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen in such a way as to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
A note regarding rejoinder of claims:
Claims 13-16 and 18 will be eligible for rejoinder upon allowance of claim 1. Claims 19 and 20 are not eligible for rejoinder, as the relationship between the claim groups is apparatus and product made. Note that determination of patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the office has reviewed the claims that will be eligible (13-16 and 18) and recommends the following amendments:
Claim 13:
“A process for concentrating Brix in a liquid, the process comprising the steps of:
- providing a system according to claim 2;
- providing the feed liquid;
- actioning the steam generator to initiate a first production of steam, wherein the resulting steam generated is directed from the steam generator to the falling film evaporator and condensed water thereafter exits housing into is pumped into the preheating unit by the second pump to heat the feed liquid to
- feeding the first preheated liquid to the heating to
- directing the second preheated liquid to the at least one spray tube and spraying the second preheated liquid on the plurality of heat exchange tubes by actioning the at least one
and further comprising:
- a
- actioning the mechanical vapor recompression unit to function in the syrup mode, heating the second preheated liquid to a the liquid between 66% and 67% and recovering the concentrated syrup product having a Brix value between 66% and 67%.”
Claim 14:
“The process of claim 13, comprising performing at least one of: brix monitoring, maple sap Brix monitoring, permeate flow reading, pH monitoring and control, conductivity meter readings, preventive management, and high and low pressure protection.”
Claim 15:
“A process for concentrating Brix in a liquid in a system according to claim 1, the process comprising the steps of:
- providing the feed liquid;
- preheating the feed liquid to a first preheated temperature to produce a first preheated liquid;
- preheating the first preheated liquid to a second preheated temperature to produce a second preheated liquid;
and further comprising:
- feeding the second preheated liquid to the the
- feeding the second preheated liquid to the the between 85°C and 103°C to produce a concentrated syrup product having a Brix level between 66% and 67%.”
Claim 16:
“The process of claim 15, comprising performing at least one of: brix monitoring, maple sap Brix monitoring, permeate flow reading, pH monitoring and control, conductivity meter readings, preventive management, and high and low pressure protection.”
Claim 18:
“The process of claim 15, wherein the process further comprises recovering the concentrated nectar product or the concentrated syrup product in response to receiving a reading from the reading apparatus
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 RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772