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.
Claim(s) 17, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagares et al. (US 2003/0089655A1), in view of Riordan (US 4094237).
Regarding claim 17, Lagares teaches a method of filtering brine remaining after injecting the brine into a food product using an injection system (refer abstract, [0001], fig. 1), comprising: collecting the brine remaining after injecting a food product with the brine (brine used in meat processing is supplied to filtration system of fig. 1, refer [0008]-[0009]); filtering in a primary filter system the collected brine remaining after injection of the food product with the brine (fig. 1 discloses primary filter 1 for filtering larger particles from brine, also refer [0009]); filtering in a secondary filter system the brine filtered by the primary filter system (fig. 1 discloses secondary filters 3a/3b).
Lagares teaches providing a scrapper 2 to remove particles from surface of primary filter 1, however, Lagares does not teach removing particulate from the primary filter and secondary filter with clean brine.
Rioddan teaches a method and apparatus for purifying contaminated brine overflow from a bacon curing machine (Refer abstract, fig. 1), the method comprising collecting contaminated brine in a collection tank, passing through a filter, and mixed with fresh brine which is directed on to the back of the filter to back-wash the filter (refer abstract, fig. 1, col. 1/line 65 – col. 2/line 21; clean brine is supplied through pipe 8 to filter 4). Rioddan establishes that it is known in the art to use clean brine for purpose of removing particulates from filter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Lagares to remove particulate from the primary filter and secondary filter with clean/fresh brine because Rioddan establishes that it is known in the art to use clean brine for purpose of removing particulates from filter. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (and applicable in this instance are): Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 19-21, modified Lagares teaches limitations of claim 17 as set forth above. Lagares teaches that brine from first filters is supplied to second filter and filtered brine from second filter is supplied to meat processing from where used brine is returned for filtration, hence providing a recirculating flow. Therefore, brine used in cleaning/rinsing the filter would also be recirculated along with the flow of brine.
Regarding claim 22, modified Lagares teaches limitations of claim 21 as set forth above. Lagares further discloses routing the brine filtered in the primary filter to a saddle tank (refer tank 5), and routing the brine from the saddle tank to the secondary filter system (brine from tank 5 is filtered through filters 7).
Regarding claim 23, modified Lagares teaches limitations of claim 19 as set forth above. Lagares further discloses routing the brine filtered in the primary filter to a saddle tank (refer tank 5), and routing the brine from the saddle tank to the secondary filter system (brine from tank 5 is filtered through filters 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that Lagares (US 2003/0089655A1) and DE 2505565 fail to teach use of clean brine for cleaning particulates from the filters. However, the argued limitation is taught by Riodran (US 4094237). Refer claim rejections above.
The affidavit/declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 03/30/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 17 based upon 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lagares et al. (US 2003/0089655A1), in view of DE 2505565 as set forth in the last Office action because: the current rejection uses combination of Lagares (US 2003/0089655A1) and Riodran (US 4094237).
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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights