Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 12-31-25 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 4-5 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 4 recites the limitations "the inlet" in line 2 and “the outlet” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 11-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,715,759 to Larson.
Referring to claims 1, 13 and 19, Larson discloses an immersion treatment system/method for treating a product by immersion in a treatment liquid, the immersion treatment system comprising, a treatment tank – at 5, for holding the treatment liquid for treating the product – see figure 1, a fluidized unloader system – at 20,61, arranged/configured to transport a product mixture of the product and the treatment liquid from an entry point at a discharge end of the treatment tank – see at 20 in figure 10, to an exit point – see point(s) where the channel between item 20 and items 52-55 meets items 52-55 as seen in figure 10, the fluidized unloader system comprising a flow regulation device – at 62,63 and 78-81, to control flow of the product mixture – see figure 10 and column 15 line 6 to column 16 line 5, the fluidized unloader system and flow regulation device controlling a residence time of the product in the treatment liquid while in the treatment tank – see figure 1 and column 10 line 15 to column 16 line 5, and a separation device – at 51-55, arranged/configured to receive a discharge of the product mixture from the exit point of the fluidized unloader system and to separate the product from the treatment liquid – see figure 10 and column 10 line 15 to column 16 line 5. Specific to claim 19, Larson further discloses a controller that operates the flow regulation device to the discharge flow rate – see figure 1 where a controller would have to be used to operate items 32-35, 51-55, 76 and 86. Larson further discloses the flow regulation device – at 62,63 and 78-81, defining an inlet end – see at 78-81, externally coupled to the treatment tank – at 5 – see via items 13 and 38-43 in figures 1-5, and the separation device – at 51-55, coupled to an outlet end opposing the inlet end of the flow regulation device – see 51-55 on opposite end of the tank – at 20 from inlet end of 78-81 at items 38-43 as seen in figures 1-5.
Referring to claim 2, Larson further discloses the product is a food product – see for example column 7 lines 37-44, and the treatment liquid comprises an antimicrobial agent selected from a group consisting of peracetic acid (PAA), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), chlorine, ozone or salt – see peracetic acid detailed in column 9 lines 40-53.
Referring to claim 3, Larson further discloses the fluidized unloader system transports the product mixture to the separation device by gravity – see item 20 above outlet proximate arrow labeled trim in figure 10 and therefore gravity assists transport of the mixture.
Referring to claim 6, Larson further discloses the flow regulation device corresponds to an air displacement flow regulation device – see air introduced via item 63 in figure 10, and the air displacement flow regulation device comprises an air supply connection to supply air to a flow control chamber and an exhaust connection for removing air from the flow control chamber – the claim limitations of the air displacement flow regulation device are not required by the claim given the “corresponds to” phrase in the claim.
Referring to claim 7, Larson further discloses the flow regulation device has two or more flow control chambers – see at 20 and – at E-H in figure 10, that fill and empty in alternating sequence – see figure 10 where the chambers are capable of filling and emptying in different sequences given the flow of fluid through the device.
Referring to claim 11, Larson further discloses the treatment tank – at 5, includes a sloping interior bottom surface configured to move the product by gravity through the treatment liquid in the treatment tank from an inlet end of the treatment tank to an unloading end of the treatment tank – see downwardly sloped surface of the tank – at 5 in figure 1.
Referring to claim 12, Larson further discloses the treatment tank further comprises an agitator – at 11, configured to maintain a consistent product-to-liquid ratio in the treatment liquid – see figure 1.
Referring to claim 18, Larson further discloses agitating the product in the treatment liquid within at least a portion of the treatment tank to maintain a consistent product-to-liquid ratio – see at 11 in figure 1.
Referring to claim 20, Larson further discloses the discharge flow rate is controlled to achieve a desired residence time based at least in part on a volume of the fluidized unloader system – see figures 1, 10 and column and column 10 line 15 to column 16 line 5, where the products are in the device having a volume related to the tank size for a period of time to achieve antimicrobial treatment of the products as desired.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,865,895 to Bass.
Referring to claims 4 and 8, Larson further discloses the flow regulation device comprises a flow control chamber – at 56,57,64, containing a variable volume of the product mixture – see figures 1-10 where items 56,57,64 are capable of containing multiple different volumes of mixture. Larson does not disclose a first non-return valve at the inlet and a second non-return valve at the outlet. Bass does disclose a first non-return valve at the inlet – see at 144, and a second non- return valve at the outlet – see at 142 and/or 146 – see figure 3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Larson and add the non-return valves of Bass, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling flow of fluid through the device as desired.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Bass as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,167,358 to Besha.
Referring to claim 5, Larson as modified by Bass does not disclose the first non-return valve and the second non-return valve individually comprise a sleeve having a fixed inlet opening and a flexible outlet opening that opens or collapses according to relative pressure generated by the flow regulation device. Besha does disclose a non-return valve comprising a sleeve – at 10,11,20, having a fixed inlet opening – proximate 20 and a flexible outlet opening – at 11 opposite 20 – see figures 1-4b, that opens or collapses according to relative pressure generated by the flow regulation device – at 71-85 – see figures 1-4b and column 6 line 51 to column 7 line 10. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Larson and add the valve with sleeve and flexible outlet as disclosed by Bass, for each of the first and second non-return valves claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of accurately controlling fluid flow through the device as desired.
Claim(s) 9 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Bass as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0061361 to Simkins.
Referring to claims 9 and 14-15, Larson as modified by Bass does not disclose a controller configured to alternate the valve between an open position having an associated aperture size and a closed position at a periodic rate based at least in part on a controlled product mixture flow rate and residence time, wherein the open position is determined based at least in part on a size of the product such that the associated aperture size corresponds to the size of the product. Simkins does disclose a controller – at 100,200, configured to alternate the valve – at 7,9, between an open position having an associated aperture size and a closed position at a periodic rate based at least in part on a controlled product mixture flow rate and residence time – see figures 1-2b and paragraphs [0026] thru [0030]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Larson as modified by Bass and add the controller to operate the valve as disclosed by Simkins, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically adjusting fluid flow through the device as desired. Larson as modified by Bass and Simkins does not disclose the valve open position is determined at least in part on a size of the product, such that the associated aperture size corresponds to the size of the product. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Larson as modified by Bass and Simkins and control the valve based on any suitable parameters including the claimed size of the product, so as to yield the predictable result of conserving use of the fluid during use. Specific to claims 14 and 15, Larson further discloses the flow regulation device comprises an inlet – at 63, an outlet – at 62, a flow control chamber – at 56,57,64, containing a variable volume of the product mixture – see figures 1-10 where items 56,57,64 are capable of containing multiple different volumes of mixture. Larson does not disclose a first non-return valve at the inlet and a second non- return valve at the outlet. Bass does disclose a first non-return valve at the inlet – see at 144, and a second non- return valve at the outlet – see at 142 and/or 146 – see figure 3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Larson and add the non-return valves of Bass, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling flow of fluid through the device as desired.
Referring to claim 16, Larson as modified by Bass and Simkins further discloses moving the product mixture from the treatment tank and through the fluidized unloader system using a positive displacement pump – see at 22 and 131 of Bass. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Larson as modified by Bass and Simkins and add the pump of Bass, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper fluid flow through the device as desired.
Referring to claim 17, Larson as modified by Bass and Simkins further discloses operating the positive displacement pump based at least in part on the residence time – see figure 1 and column 6 lines 30-62 of Bass. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Larson as modified by Bass and Simkins and add the pump of Bass, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper fluid flow through the device as desired.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0133154 to Massey et al.
Referring to claim 10, Larson does not disclose the treatment tank includes a screw conveyor configured to regulate advancement of the product through the treatment liquid in the treatment tank from an inlet end of the treatment tank to the discharge end of the treatment tank. Massey et al. does disclose the treatment tank – at 130,131, includes a screw conveyor – at 211, configured to regulate advancement of the product through the treatment liquid in the treatment tank from an inlet end of the treatment tank to the discharge end of the treatment tank – see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0021] thru [0023]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Larson and add the screw conveyor of Massey et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the products move through the tank and treatment fluid as desired during use.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 12-31-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 9, 13 and 19 detailed in the last office action dated 10-1-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1, 13 and 19, the Larson reference US 8715759 discloses the newly added claim limitations of applicant’s claim amendments dated 12-31-25 in that Larson discloses the flow regulation device – at 62,63 and 78-81, defining an inlet end – see at 78-81, externally coupled to the treatment tank – at 5 – see via items 13 and 38-43 in figures 1-5, and the separation device – at 51-55, coupled to an outlet end opposing the inlet end of the flow regulation device – see 51-55 on opposite end of the tank – at 20 from inlet end of 78-81 at items 38-43 as seen in figures 1-5. Further, Larson discloses the separation device – at 50-55 is separate and external to the treatment tank – at 5 as seen in figures 1-5.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-3, 6-7, 11-12, 18 and 20, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claims 1, 13 and 19 discussed earlier.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 4-5, 8-10 and 14-17, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claims 1, 13 and 19 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights