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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeghbali et al. (US 2018/0045462 a1) in view of Ouyang et al. (CN 113915987 A) and Pitman (US 5,501,032).
Baeghbali et al. discloses a drying method and system for drying food products comprising a refractance window dryer 110 (FIG. 1), a water supply system 140, 142, 170 (Fig. 1) configured to provide hot water to the refractance window dryer (Fig. 1), an air supply system 146 configured to provide hot air to the refractance window dryer 110. However, Baeghbali et al. does not disclose at least one portable platform and the refractance window dryer, water supply system and air supply system disposed on the at least one platform. Ouyang et al. discloses a mobile drying system and method (Fig. 1) comprising: at least one portable platform 104; a dryer 413 disposed on the at least one platform 104; and an air supply system 402-408 disposed on the at least one platform 104 and configured to provide hot air to the dryer 413 (Fig.1). Pitman teaches a concept of disposing a water supply system 14 on a platform (Figs. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying method and system of Baeghbali et al. to include at least one portable platform and to dispose the refractance window dryer, water supply system and air supply system to the at least one platform as taught by Ouyang et al. and Pitman in order to provide convenient to users to perform drying on site, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952).
Regard claim 5, Baeghbali et al. discloses the refractance window dryer comprises a drying chamber 148 (Fig. 1) comprising a belt 190 (Fig. 1) and at least one hot water tank 170 (Fig. 1) disposed under the belt (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Baeghbali et al. discloses the refractance window dryer further comprises an exit cooling section 144 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Baeghbali et al. discloses wherein the water supply system is further configured to provide a cooled solution to the exit cooling section (see arrows into and out off 144).
Regarding claim 8, Baeghbali discloses wherein the cooled solution comprises water (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, glycol compound is known in the art as an ideal choice for cooling system.
Regarding claims 10-11, Baeghbali et al. discloses the water supply system further comprises a tank 144 for holding a cleaning agent (tank 144 is capable of being used to hold cleaning agent comprising a bromide solution).
Regarding claim 12, Baeghbali et al. discloses the refractance window dryer comprises a first hot water section (Fig. 1, portion of 170 near 122) and a second hot water section (Fig. 1, portion of 170 near 124), the first hot water section comprising a first temperature and the second hot water section comprising a second temperature.
Regarding claim 14, Pitman discloses wherein the water supply system 14, 22-32 further comprises a water line 22’ 26’, 28 configured for cleaning one or more components of the mobile drying system (applicator 28 is capable of being used to clean one or more components of the mobile drying system).
Regarding claim 15, Baeghbali et al. discloses wherein the refractance window dryer further comprises a mixer 130 for preparing a product to be dried.
Regarding claim 16, Ouyang discloses a generator 202 to provide power for at least one of the refractance window dryer, the water supply system, or the air supply system.
Regarding claim 18, Ouyang discloses wherein the mobile drying system is positioned at or near a location where the plant product is harvested (translation, page 2, contents of the invention, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Ouyang discloses the plant product comprises a slurry containing plant material (translation, page 2, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 20, Baeghbali et al. discloses wherein drying the plant product comprises applying the plant product to a belt in the refractance window dryer (abstract, Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejections. First, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Baeghbali et al. discloses drying system comprising a refractance window dryer, a water supply system and an air supply system. Ouyang teaches a mobile drying system with at least one portable platform and a dryer and an air supply system disposed on the at least one plat form. Pitman teaches a concept of disposing a water supply system on a platform. Therefore, in view of combined teachings from Baeghbali et al, Ouyang and Pitman, one skill in the art would be able to derive the claimed invention of disposing a refractance window dryer, water supply system and air supply system on a platform to make the drying system portable. It has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952). Second, Baeghbali et al. does teach or suggest an air supply system 146 to provide hot air to the refractance window dryer, air is pulled into and from dryer 110 via fan 146 and the air within the dryer 110 is heated (paragraph [0025]). Third, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights