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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first dosing valve, second dosing valve, first dosing pump, and second dosing pump must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SYSTEMS .
There is no method claims in the current claim set (10/23/2023)
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.
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) 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.
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: a dosing system in claim 2 and a meat or poultry immersion arrangement in claim 2.
Three Prong Test
Prong I: a dosing system (Generic place holder)
Prong II: for dosing a first solution and a second solution into the chiller water (Function)
Prong III: no structure.
The specification recites “ The dosing system may comprise a first dosing pump operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing pump operatively connected to a second inlet, wherein the first and second inlets are in the recirculation line. The dosing system may comprise a first dosing valve operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet, wherein the first inlet is in the recirculation line and the second inlet is in the tank adjacent the first end. The dosing system may comprise a first dosing valve operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet, wherein the first and second inlets are in the one or more water lines. According to some aspects, the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet, wherein the first inlet is in the one or more water lines and the second inlet is in the tank adjacent the first end. The one or more water lines may comprise a cold water line connected to a cooling system, wherein the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet, and wherein one or both of the first and second inlets are in the cold water line. In some aspects the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet, wherein the first and second inlets are in the tank adjacent the first end. The dosing system may comprise a first dosing valve operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet, wherein the first inlet comprises a plurality of nozzles positioned on a spray bar extending across the tank in a direction transverse to the direction of flow of water. The dosing system may comprise a first dosing valve operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet, wherein the first and second inlets are positioned along the bottom or walls of the tank within the volume of chiller water. The dosing system may comprise a first dosing valve operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet, wherein each of the first and second inlets comprise a plurality of inlet ports disposed along the walls and the bottom of the tank. The dosing system may comprise a first dosing valve operatively connected to a first inlet, and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet, wherein each of the first and second inlets comprise a plurality of inlet ports disposed in a U-shaped area along the walls and the bottom of the tank, wherein the U-shaped area approximately corresponds to a cross section of the tank in a direction transverse to the recirculating water flow.” The examiner will interpret the “dosing system” using the paragraph above.
Three Prong Test
Prong I: a meat or poultry immersion arrangement (Generic place holder)
Prong II: for immersing and moving meat or poultry carcasses in the chiller water (Function)
Prong III: no structure.
The specification recites “a meat or poultry immersion arrangement for immersing and moving meat or poultry carcasses in the chiller water in a meat or poultry flow direction from the second end of the tank to the first end of the tank. The chiller bath may further comprise a drain at the second end”, the specification is silent on any structure for this limitations. The examiner will interpret this as any device cable of moving meat or poultry carcasses from one end of the chiller to another.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitation of “a meat or poultry immersion arrangement” found in claim 2 fails to be described with any structure in the specification, the applicant is advised to submit a corrected specification, that describes the structure of the ” a meat or poultry immersion arrangement” or remove said limitation.
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 2-29 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 limitation “meat or poultry immersion arrangement” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In claim 2, the limitation of “a meat or poultry immersion arrangement” seems unclear. The specification is silent regarding the structure of the “a meat or poultry immersion arrangement”. the applicant is advised to submit a corrected specification, that describes the structure of the ”a meat or poultry immersion arrangement” or remove said limitation.
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 2-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060225439 A1 – Morris in view of US 20160058023 A1 – Mullen.
Regarding claim 2, Morris is directed towards an poultry chiller. Morris does teach a tank for holding a volume of chiller water ([0004] A typical auger type poultry chiller includes an elongated, half-cylindrical tank having a rotary auger placed therein. Water is placed in the tan), the tank comprising a bottom and walls ([0010] The chiller tank 10 is a one-half cylinder tank that has a lower portion 12 in the form of a one-half cylinder and vertical wall extensions 14 and 15) defining a first end and a second end ([0004] Water is placed in the tank and is recirculated through a cooling system such as a refrigeration system, with the water directed to a first end of the tank and reclaimed at a second end of the tank. Birds are placed in the tank at its second end and the birds are advanced by rotation of the auger toward the first end and are removed from the tank at its first end.), one or more water lines (50 and 74) operatively connected to one or more pumps (52 and 76) for pumping water into the tank and creating a direction of flow of water from the first end to the second end (Figure 4), the one or more water lines comprising a make-up water inlet (70) at the first end of the tank; and a meat or poultry immersion arrangement for immersing and moving meat or poultry carcasses in the chiller water in a flow direction from the second end of the tank to the first end of the tank ([0010] The helical auger blade 16 in the tank is rotated on its auger shaft 18 in the direction as indicated by arrow 20).
Morris does not expressly teach a dosing system for dosing a first solution and a second solution into the chiller water, the dosing system arranged to create a plurality of zones within the volume of water, wherein each zone has a higher concentration of either the first or the second solution than surrounding portions of the volume of water.
Mullen is directed towards an chemical application device for meat and poultry. Mullen does teach a dosing system for dosing a first solution and a second solution into the chiller water ([0056] The sensor device (34) is in informational communication with a controller device (35) whose process logic controls the introduction of one, two, or more chlorous acid forming component feed sources (36a, 36b)), the dosing system arranged to create a plurality of zones within the volume of water ([0052] Referring now to FIG. 1 there is shown an embodiment of a system (100) constructed and arranged to collect and recirculate used fluid. A raw meat treating apparatus includes items such as one or more of a raw meat dip (9b) or raw meat spray (9a) which applies an activated chlorous agent bearing solution.), wherein each zone has a higher concentration of either the first or the second solution than surrounding portions of the volume of water ([0067] In another embodiment, the activity of said chemicals is controlled by adjusting the flow rate of said chemicals and said feeding liquid, which are introduced into said apparatuses.).
The combination of the dosing system of Mullen and the chilling tank of Morris allow for the dosing system to be able to infuse chemicals into the bath from the reservoirs (36a and 36b) with a plurality of zones achieved by using nozzles (9a). furthermore, the controller can adjust the amount of chemicals that flow from the reservoirs depending on a multitude of parameters of the chilling tank.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morris to include a first solution and a second solution into the chiller water, the dosing system arranged to create a plurality of zones within the volume of water, wherein each zone has a higher concentration of either the first or the second solution than surrounding portions of the volume of water because controlling the chemicals being used by Mullen in the chilling tank of Morris allows the chilling process to be automated and adjustable.
Regarding claim 3, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris does teach a drain (78) at the second end of the tank and a recirculation line for circulating the chiller water in the tank (74 and the pipe leaving pump 52), the recirculation line having a first end in fluid communication with the drain and a second end disposed at the first end of the tank (Figure 4 shows pump 76 to pipe 74), the recirculation line comprising a pump arranged to create a recirculating water flow from the first end to the second end of the recirculation line and from the first end of the tank to the second end of the tank (Figure 4 show Pumps 52 and 76 allowing liquid to flow form each end to the other.).
Regarding claim 4, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 3. Morris does teach the dosing system comprises a first dosing pump (76) operatively connected to a first inlet (70), and a second dosing pump (52) operatively connected to a second inlet (58), wherein the first and second inlets are in the recirculation line (Figure 4 shows the first and second inlet located in the recirculation line).
Regarding claim 5, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 3. Morris does teach the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve (72) operatively connected to a first inlet (70), and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet ([0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.), wherein the first inlet is in the recirculation line and the second inlet is in the tank adjacent the first end (Figure 4 shows the inlets are adjacent to the tank).
Regarding claim 6, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris does teach the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve (72) operatively connected to a first inlet ([0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.), and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet (58), wherein the first and second inlets are in the one or more water lines (Figure 4 shows multiple water lines on each the first and second inlets).
Regarding claim 7, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris does teach a first dosing valve (72) operatively connected to a first inlet (70), and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet ([0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.), wherein the first inlet is in the one or more water lines (Figure 4 shows multiple water lines on each the first and second inlets) and the second inlet is in the tank adjacent the first end (Figure 4 shows the inlets are adjacent to the tank).
Regarding claim 8, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 7. Morris does teach
the one or more water lines comprises a cold water line connected to a cooling system ([0055] moves the water through a heat exchanger 54 that reduces the temperature of the water), wherein the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve (72) operatively connected to a first inlet (70), and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet([0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.), and wherein one or both of the first and second inlets are in the cold water line ([0059] The water pump moves water from the cold end of the tank to each of the nozzles 70 and [0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.).
Regarding claim 9, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris does teach
the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve (72) operatively connected to a first inlet (70), and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet ([0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.), wherein the first and second inlets are in the tank adjacent the first end (Figure 4 shows the inlets are adjacent to the first end of the tank).
Regarding claim 10, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris does teach
the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve (72) operatively connected to a first inlet (70), and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet ([0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.), wherein the first inlet comprises a plurality of nozzles ([0059] each nozzle may include its own control valve 72 that communicates with a header 74) positioned on a spray bar extending across the tank in a direction transverse to the direction of flow of water (Figure 4 shows the nozzle spray 90 degrees from the water flow).
Regarding claim 11, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris does teach the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve (72) operatively connected to a first inlet (70), and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet ([0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.), wherein the first and second inlets are positioned along the bottom or walls of the tank within the volume of chiller water (Figure 4 shows the inlet on the side walls).
Regarding claim 12, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris does teach the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve (72) operatively connected to a first inlet (70), and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet ([0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.), wherein each of the first and second inlets comprise a plurality of inlet ports disposed along the walls and the bottom of the tank (Figure 5 shows the inlet on the side walls and the lower part of the tank).
Regarding claim 13, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris does teach the dosing system comprises a first dosing valve (72) operatively connected to a first inlet (70), and a second dosing valve operatively connected to a second inlet ([0055] Usually, several inlet conduits 58 are used to introduce the rechilled water into the tank 36.), wherein each of the first and second inlets comprise a plurality of inlet ports disposed in a U-shaped area along the walls and the bottom of the tank, wherein the U-shaped area approximately corresponds to a cross section of the tank in a direction transverse to the recirculating water flow. (Figure 4 shows the first and second inlets forming a “U-Shaped” piping configuration, while allowing the nozzles of the first and second inlet to inject the liquid at a 90 degree angle in respect to the water flow).
Regarding claim 14, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach the first solution is a peracid.
Regarding the claimed invention being “The chiller bath.” as recited in the preamble of claim 14, the applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the patented structure of the dosing system of Mullen with the chilling tank of Miller was considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
Furthermore, in addition to structural limitations, claim 14 is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The material or article worked on is “a peracid.” The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 15, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 14. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach the peracid comprises peracetic acid and creates at least one peracid zone.
Regarding the claimed invention being “The chiller bath” as recited in the preamble of claim 15, the applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the patented structure of the dosing system of Mullen with the chilling tank of Miller was considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
Regarding claim 16, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 15. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach the pH of the at least one peracid zone is about 4 to about 8.5.
Regarding the claimed invention being “The chiller bath” as recited in the preamble of claim 16, the applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the patented structure of the dosing system of Mullen with the chilling tank of Miller was considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
Regarding claim 17, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 15. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach the second solution is a source of alkalinity.
Regarding the claimed invention being “The chiller bath” as recited in the preamble of claim 17, the applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the patented structure of the dosing system of Mullen with the chilling tank of Miller was considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
Regarding claim 18, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 17. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach the source of alkalinity creates at least one alkaline zone.
Regarding the claimed invention being “the chiller bath” as recited in the preamble of claim 18, the applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the patented structure of the dosing system of Mullen with the chilling tank of Miller was considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
Regarding claim 19, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 18. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach the alkaline zone has a pH of about 8.5 to about 13.
Regarding the claimed invention being “the chiller bath” as recited in the preamble of claim 19, the applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the patented structure of the dosing system of Mullen with the chilling tank of Miller was considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
Regarding claim 20, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 14. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach the peracid has a concentration of about 25 to about 150 ppm within the peracid zone when measured under acidic conditions.
Regarding the claimed invention being “the chiller bath” as recited in the preamble of claim 20, the applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the patented structure of the dosing system of Mullen with the chilling tank of Miller was considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
Regarding claim 21, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 17. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach the peracid is added continuously and the source of alkalinity is added intermittently.
Since the peracid is added continuously and the source of alkalinity is added intermittently is a key factor in the success of the dosing system. As discussed by Morris and Mullen, the chemicals can be adjusted by the controller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform the peracid is added continuously and the source of alkalinity is added intermittently and to incorporate it into the system of Morris and Mullen since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 17. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach wherein the peracid is added continuously, the source of alkalinity is added continuously, or both.
Since the peracid is added continuously and the source of alkalinity is added intermittently is a key factor in the success of the dosing system. As discussed by Morris and Mullen, the chemicals can be adjusted by the controller. This practice is well known in the business community and would follow in chilling tanks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform wherein the peracid is added continuously, the source of alkalinity is added continuously, or both and to incorporate it into the system of Morris and Mullen since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 17. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach wherein the peracid is added continuously, the source of alkalinity is added continuously, or both.
Since the source of alkalinity and the peracid are added alternatingly or intermittently is a key factor in the success of the dosing system. As discussed by Morris and Mullen, the chemicals can be adjusted by the controller. This practice is well known in the business community and would follow in chilling tanks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform wherein the peracid is added continuously, the source of alkalinity and the peracid are added alternatingly or intermittently and to incorporate it into the system of Morris and Mullen since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 17. Morris does not expressly teach the source of alkalinity and the peracid are added into a water input line.
Mullen does teach the source of chemicals are added into a water input line ([0056] The sensor device (34) is in informational communication with a controller device (35) whose process logic controls the introduction of one, two, or more chlorous acid forming component feed sources (36a, 36b) into the rapid mixing device (12)).
Regarding the peracid and alkalinity, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use peracid and alkalinity, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Furthermore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morris to include the source of chemicals are added into a water input line so the chemicals to clean the meat of Mullen can be injected into the tank of Morris.
Regarding claim 25, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 17. Morris does not expressly teach the source of alkalinity is added at intervals determined based on a flow rate of water in the chiller and volume of the chiller.
Mullen does teach the source of chemicals is added at intervals determined based on a flow rate of water in the chiller and volume of the chiller ([0056] The process logic is such that in response to various measured properties of the recirculating fluid, the amount of one or more regents from one or more of the feed source(s) is fed into the rapid feed mixer (12). The system may alternatively feed the recirculating fluid into the rapid feed mixer (12) in the absence of any or all additional reagents, may feed one or more reagents into the rapid feed mixer (12) in the absence of any recirculating fluid, or may combine any amount of recirculating fluid and any one or more reagents as appropriate.).
Regarding the use of peracid and alkalinity, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use peracid and alkalinity, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Furthermore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morris to include the source of chemicals is added at intervals determined based on a flow rate of water in the chiller and volume of the chiller because the logic of Mullen with the chiller bath of Morris allows the addition of the chemicals to be adjusted.
Regarding claim 26, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 17. Morris does not expressly teach the peracid is added at intervals determined based on a flow rate of water in the chiller and volume of the chiller.
Mullen does teach the source of chemicals is added at intervals determined based on a flow rate of water in the chiller and volume of the chiller ([0056] The process logic is such that in response to various measured properties of the recirculating fluid, the amount of one or more regents from one or more of the feed source(s) is fed into the rapid feed mixer (12). The system may alternatively feed the recirculating fluid into the rapid feed mixer (12) in the absence of any or all additional reagents, may feed one or more reagents into the rapid feed mixer (12) in the absence of any recirculating fluid, or may combine any amount of recirculating fluid and any one or more reagents as appropriate.).
Regarding the use of peracid and alkalinity, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use peracid and alkalinity, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Furthermore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morris to include the source of chemicals is added at intervals determined based on a flow rate of water in the chiller and volume of the chiller because the logic of Mullen with the chiller bath of Morris allows the addition of the chemicals to be adjusted.
Regarding claim 27, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 17. Morris and Mullen does not expressly teach the source of alkalinity and the peracid are added to create plug flows of source of alkalinity and of peracid in the water input line.
Morris and Mullen shows a one way flow tank that will create chemical zones that will have different concentrations of said chemicals, as the meat/poultry is removed the chemicals that are absorbed by the meat/poultry will lover the concertation of said chemicals, therefor it would be apparent that this system would cause a plug flow system.
Regarding the source of chemicals are added to create plug flows of source of chemicals in the water input line, the applicant is respectfully advised that it has been held by the courts that where a prior art apparatus is identical or substantially identical in structure, claimed properties or functional characteristics are presumed to be inherent, and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01. In this case, Morris and Mullen discloses all the structural features of the claimed invention (as detailed above) and was therefore considered to anticipate the cited functional limitations.
Regarding the use of peracid and alkalinity, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use peracid and alkalinity, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 28, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 2. Morris does teach the meat or poultry carcasses are moved in the chiller bath in a first direction, and the plurality of zones move in a second direction opposite of the first direction (Figure 8 and 9, [0078] A water jet circulation pump 115 draws colder water from the first end 100 of the chiller tank and directs the colder water through the water jets 120, through the lower side wall of the chiller tank 92. The water streams 122 emitted from the water jets 120 are directed at an upwardly and inwardly sloped angle from the lower side walls of the tank).
Regarding claim 29, Morris and Mullen does teach the limitations of claim 18. Morris does teach the chiller bath comprises from one to four chemical zones (Figure 4 shows multiple inlets that would be form the different zones.).
Regarding the use of peracid and alkalinity, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use peracid and alkalinity, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090304890 A1 – NI does teach a plug flow system.
US 6767569 B1 – Marsden does teach a processing device with multiple pumps and inlets.
US 20070084802 A1 – Hilgren does teach a recycling device that uses multiple pumps and chemicals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights