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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Fig. 17, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Fig. 18 should be included in the examination. This is argument is moot because the restriction does group Figs. 17, 18 as one species..
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/10/2026.
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: “first air circulating device” and :second air circulating device” in claims 1 and 6.
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 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 1-10 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 the limitation "said tube" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear the claimed “said tube” in line 3 is same as the “hollow tube” recited in line 2 or different tube.
Claim 1 recites “it” in line 5. It is unclear the recited “it” is for which claimed element.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said air circulating device" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said mounded foodstuff" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "or other apertures" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or other aperture"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said mounded produce" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said tube" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear the claimed “said tube” in line 4 is same as the “hollow tube” recited in line 3 or different tube.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said air circulating device" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “it” in line 6. It is unclear the recited “it” is for which claimed element.
Claims 7-10 are method claimed. Method claims shall be defined by active, positive steps. However, claims 7-10 failed to include any active, positive method steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roh et al. (KR 101834130 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Roh et al. discloses an apparatus for drying foodstuff (translation, page 2, line 3), the apparatus comprising: (a) a hollow tube 140 comprising meshed openings (Figs. 5, 7), said hollow tube 140 having a first end (see reproduced Fig. 5 below), and said tube disposed above a surface (see reproduced Fig. 5 below); (b) a first air circulating device (see reproduced Fig. 5 below) that produces a first output air flow (see reproduced Fig. 5 below), said air circulating device fluidly coupled to said hollow tube at its first end (Fig., 5); (c) a first stand (see reproduced Fig. 5 below), whereupon said first air circulating device is supported above said surface; (d) a second air circulating device (see reproduced Fig. 5 below) that produces a second output air flow (see reproduced Fig. 5 below), said second air circulating device fluidly coupled to said hollow tube 140 at a second end (see reproduced Fig. 5 below) of said hollow tube; (e) a second stand (see reproduced Fig. 5 below), whereupon said second air circulating device is supported above said surface; (f) zero or more support members that provide additional support to the hollow tube above the surface despite a dynamic or static load of foodstuff mounded above and around the hollow tube; (g) wherein said first and second air circulating devices cause air to flow through said hollow tube and through said mounded foodstuff (Fig. 5). Roh et al. also discloses a method for drying foodstuff, the method comprising (a) provide a drying apparatus as above (Fig. 5); (b) mounding foodstuff above and around the hollow tube 140 (Fig. 2); (c) allowing air to circulate through the hollow tube, and among the foodstuff to dry the foodstuff (see air flow arrows in Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 2, 7, Roh et al. discloses wherein the foodstuff comprises produce selected from the group consisting of nuts, fruits, and vegetables (translation, page 2, 5th paragraph).
Regarding claims 3, 8, Roh et al. discloses wherein said meshed openings in the hollow tube are selected from the group consisting of holes, slits, apertures in mesh, apertures in a wire frame, and other apertures (Fig. 7, micropores 143).
Regarding claims 5, 9, Roh et al. discloses wherein the hollow tube 140 is configured to flow air from outside ambient air (Fig. 2, from air supply device 200) to said hollow tube 140, or where the hollow tube 140 is configured to flow air from said mounded produce 10 to outside ambient air (Fig. 2, from air discharge port 210).
Regarding claim 10, Roh et al. discloses wherein the air flowing from the outside ambient to said hollow tube is heated (Fig. 2, by heater 170).
PNG
media_image1.png
673
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Conclusion
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