DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are pending. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 15 are examined on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The 112(f) interpretation of “heating unit” is withdrawn.
The claim objections and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 12/02/2025 arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for reasons below.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the 35 USC § 103 rejection rests on modifying THORSEN’s method in view of FUJII’s teachings (see 09/11/2025 Non-Final Action at ¶ 25). But Applicant’s arguments—lodged at only FUJII (see Remarks at 7)—fail to address the heart of the § 103 rejection: i.e., it would’ve been obvious to modify THORSEN’s method to incorporate the technique of generating and imploding bubbles (as taught by FUJII), with the reasonable expectation of enhancing cleaning effect (see Non-Final at ¶¶ 24-25).
Indeed, in the “Examiner’s Comments” on ¶ 14 of the Non-Final, the Examiner explains that the technique of generating and imploding bubbles is already well known in the prior art.
Applicant contends that the “designated cleaning tank of Fujii cannot reasonably be comparable to such a section in a food processing system in which a cleaning liquid is introduced into or made to boil inside” (Remarks at 7). This is not persuasive. Both the claimed “section” and FUJII’s tank are containers containing a cleaning liquid therein; FUJII teaches inducing boiling of the cleaning liquid to form bubbles in the cleaning liquid, just like the claimed method; and FUJII teaches imploding those bubbles to form a mechanical impact on deposits, just like the claimed method. Therefore, FUJII’s teachings—especially the technique of generating and imploding bubbles in a cleaning liquid in a tank/container—are highly relevant to the claimed invention.
Applicant contends that FUJII fails to teach “a cleaning fluid source in a processing section of a food processing system, as claimed” (Remarks at 7). The term “cleaning fluid source” is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner notes that “cleaning fluid source” also does not appear in the specification.
Applicant contends that FUJII fails to teach cleaning of a section of a food processing system (see Remarks at 7). This is not persuasive because THORSEN already teaches cleaning of a section of a food processing system (see Non-Final at ¶ 18), and the § 103 rejection rests on modifying THORSEN’s method in view of FUJII (see id. at ¶ 25). In other words, this argument is not responsive to the heart of the § 103 rejection.
Applicant contends that FUJII only teaches the cleaning of objects inside a tank, but not the cleaning of any inner surfaces of the tank (see Remarks at 7). This is not persuasive, as the argument amounts to an overly narrow reading of the prior art, contrary to the Supreme Court’s instructions. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418.
Here, FUJII teaches that when bubbles are generated and imploded in the cleaning liquid in tank 3, pressure waves are generated as a result (see Non-Final at pg. 9, citing pg. 6-7, 12-13, 29 of FUJII). Therefore, the reasonable inference is that such pressure waves would travel through the cleaning liquid to contact not only the target objects, but also the tank’s inner surfaces. The Examiner does not find—and Applicant does not cite—any evidence showing that the pressure waves are limited exclusively to the objects such that the pressure waves cannot contact the tank’s inner surfaces. Indeed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that pressure waves travel through a medium such as liquid.
And to the extent that Applicant’s arguments against FUJII—i.e., FUJII does not teach cleaning of a section of a food processing system—may be interpreted as suggesting that FUJII is not analogous art, this is also not persuasive. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if either prong is met: “(1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” See MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Here, FUJII can satisfy either prong: FUJII is in the same field of endeavor—e.g., the field of cleaning using a liquid—as the claimed invention, so FUJII meets the first prong; and FUJII’s teachings on generating and imploding bubbles to enhance cleaning is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, so FUJII meets the second prong. Moreover, the technique of generating and imploding bubbles to enhance cleaning is well known in the prior art; the five references cited in the “Relevant Prior Art” section of the Non-Final—BONUTTI, EIDELMAN, BATES, KOENIG, and ROSENBERG—are all analogous art because each reference can satisfy (at minimum) the second prong outlined in MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Applicant contends that:
Accordingly, even if generating and imploding bubbles is a well-known technique for enhanced cleaning and/or sterilizing of objects, as taught by Fujii and any of the non- relied upon references, it still would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply such a technique specifically to a section of a food processing system that provides a source of cleaning fluid. For example, different considerations are involved when adjusting a pressure and/or temperature in a section of a food processing system, rather than in a designated cleaning tank separate from any food processing system in which objects are simply immersed.
This argument is conclusory without any evidentiary support because: (1) Applicant does not explain what those “different considerations” are; and (2) Applicant does not provide any supporting evidence (e.g., experimental data, expert declaration, etc.).
Regarding the NAGALINGAM reference, Applicant contends that the skilled artisan would not look at NAGALINGAM because it’s “directed toward non-food systems and discloses methods for removing surface imperfections by abrasive liquid and achieving a target surface roughness” (Remarks at 8). To the extent that Applicant is suggesting NAGALINGAM is not analogous art, this is not persuasive. NAGALINGAM satisfies (at minimum) the second prong outlined in MPEP § 2141.01(a): NAGALINGAM’s teachings—e.g., using a downstream valve to control the pressure of a fluid in a section upstream of the valve—are still “reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” See MPEP § 2141.01(a).
In conclusion, because Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in rebutting the 35 USC § 103 rejections, those rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the heatinq unit comprises at least one of steam iniector, steam infuser and indirect heat exchanger,” but the specification discloses that those three structures are alternatives. For example, the specification discloses that:
“The food processing system 100 may further comprise a heating unit 108, herein illustrated as a steam injector as a direct heating unit. Alternatively, the heating unit 108 may be a steam infuser as again a direct heating unit or a heat exchanger as illustrated in Fig. 4 as an indirect heating unit” (specification at pg. 5 line 30 to pg. 6 line 1);
“The heating unit may be a steam injector or a steam infuser” (specification at pg. 4 lines 20-21);
“wherein the heating unit is a steam injector or a steam infuser” (Claim 11);
“The heating unit may be selected from a group consisting of steam injector, steam infuser and indirect heat exchanger” (specification at pg. 3 lines 21-22);
“wherein the heating unit is selected from a group consisting of steam injector, steam infuser and indirect heat exchanger” (originally filed Claim 5).
Although Claim 4 has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of Claim 5, the new language of “comprises at least one” in Claim 4 is materially different from the language previously used in Claim 5. Therefore, Claim 4 contains new matter.
Examiner’s Comments
It’s well known in the art that, by generating and imploding bubbles, it’s possible to enhance cleaning and/or sterilizing effects. See “Relevant Prior Art” section for a non-limiting list of relevant prior art references. The Examiner notes that these references—BONUTTI, EIDELMAN, BATES, KOENIG, and ROSENBERG—are all analogous art because each of them is “reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” See MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Although these references are not used for the 35 USC § 103 rejections in this Office Action—so as to avoid overly burdening Applicant—they may be used for § 103 rejections in a future Office Action, depending on the claim amendment and/or Applicant’s reply.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORSEN (US PGPUB 20180352823, cited in IDS), in view of FUJII (WIPO Publication WO2010103782A1, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, THORSEN teaches a method for removing deposits inside a section (e.g., holding cell 13B/23B) in a food processing system (perform a cleaning-in-place or “CIP” on food processing line 30, 40, 50, etc., see abstract, claims 1-19, ¶¶ 0011, 0081-82, Figs. 3-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
THORSEN teaches that the food processing system 50 comprises the CIP system as shown in Figs. 3-4 for food processing systems 30 and 40 (see ¶ 0081). Indeed, THORSEN teaches that the section (e.g., holding cell 13B/23B) is part of the final heater 13/23 (see ¶¶ 0059, 0082, claims 5, 17, 18). In other words, just like food processing systems 30 and 40, food processing system 50 also has a CIP-entry point (e.g., valve 134/234, see Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0081; see also annotated Fig. 5 above) for the CIP/cleaning fluid to enter the food processing system and a CIP-exit point (e.g., valve 136/236) for the CIP/cleaning fluid to exit the system, wherein the CIP-entry point is positioned upstream of the section (holding cell 13B/23B) and the CIP-exit point is positioned downstream of the section (see Figs. 3-5, ¶ 0082).
THORSEN’s method comprising:
introducing a cleaning liquid (see ¶ 0142) into the section (perform a cleaning-in-place or “CIP” procedure on first sequence I, which includes final heater 13, which in turn includes holding cell 13B, see Figs. 3-5, ¶¶ 0011, 0025, 0070, 0097, 0115, claims 1 & 15; see also ¶ 0052, performing CIP on the final heater);
transferring the deposits being released by the cleaning liquid out from the section (as explained above, the CIP/cleaning fluid exits the food processing system via valve 136, which means deposits would be removed from holding cell 13B).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, because CIP entry point and CIP exit point are provided for final heater 23 (which includes holding cell 23B), CIP procedure may be performed to remove deposits from holding cell 23B. In other words, THORSEN’s disclosures for cleaning final heater 13 (which has holding cell 13B) readily applies to cleaning final heater 23 (which has holding cell 23B).
THORSEN does not explicitly teach:
“inducing boiling of the cleaning liquid by adjusting a pressure and/or a temperature inside the section to a first pressure value and/or a first temperature value, thereby forming bubbles in the cleaning liquid”;
“imploding the bubbles by adjusting the pressure and/or the temperature to a second pressure value and/or a second temperature value, thereby forming a mechanical impact on the deposits such that the deposits are released from the section.”
FUJII teaches a cleaning method using bubbles in a cleaning liquid in a container, just like the present application; thus FUJII is analogous art. FUJII’s method comprises:
introducing a cleaning liquid into a section (introducing a cleaning liquid into tank 3, see Fig. 1, pg. 17-18; see also pouring step S1 in Figs. 2-3, pg. 23-24);
inducing boiling of the cleaning liquid by adjusting a pressure and/or a temperature inside the section to a first pressure value and/or a first temperature value, thereby forming bubbles in the cleaning liquid (see heating step S2 in Figs. 2-3, pg. 24-25, and pressure reducing step S3 in Figs. 2-3, pg. 25-27); and
imploding the bubbles (see pg. 6-7, 12-13, 29, the bubbles condense to generate pressure waves in the cleaning liquid) by adjusting the pressure to a second pressure value (see pressure restoration step S3 in Figs. 2-3, pg. 25-27), thereby forming a mechanical impact on a target object (see pg. 6-7, 12-13, 29, generating pressure waves in the cleaning liquid).
FUJII teaches that, by inducing boiling to form bubbles and then imploding those bubbles, the cleaning effect can be enhanced (see pg. 3, 5, 17).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify THORSEN’s CIP procedure to incorporate (1) inducing boiling of the cleaning liquid by adjusting a pressure and/or a temperature inside the section to a first pressure value and/or a first temperature value, thereby forming bubbles in the cleaning liquid and (2) imploding the bubbles by adjusting the pressure to a second pressure value, with reasonable expectation of enhancing the cleaning effect. First, by inducing boiling to form bubbles and then imploding those bubbles, the cleaning effect can be enhanced; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate the inducing step and the imploding step into THORSEN’s CIP procedure. Second, it’s well known in the art to induce boiling of the cleaning liquid—by adjusting pressure and/or temperature—to form bubbles in the cleaning liquid and implode the bubbles by adjusting pressure (see FUJII). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined those elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The inducing step and the imploding step, as incorporated, would serve the same functions as before (e.g., forming and imploding bubbles to generate pressure waves), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of THORSEN and FUJII: bubbles would be formed in the cleaning liquid in the section (e.g., holding cell 13B/23B of THORSEN) and the bubbles would be imploded, thereby generating pressure waves in the cleaning liquid, said waves forming a mechanical impact on the deposits such that the deposits are released from the section.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of THORSEN and FUJII teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the section is a holding cell (e.g., holding cell 13B/23B of THORSEN) arranged to hold a food product for a pre-determined time at a pre-determined temperature during a production phase (see THORSEN at ¶¶ 0028, 0047, 0059, 0082, holding a food product such as milk in the holding cell for sterilization).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of THORSEN and FUJII teaches the method according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the step of inducing boiling is by increasing temperature.
The combination teaches a heating unit (final heater 13A/23A of THORSEN) in the system positioned upstream of the section (upstream from holding cell 13B/23B of THORSEN, see THORSEN at Figs. 3-5), wherein the heating unit (final heater 13A/23A) may be a steam injector (see THORSEN at ¶¶ 0043, 0048, 0056, 0078) or a steam infusor (see id.).
Although the combination does not explicitly teach using the heating unit (i.e., final heater 13A/23A of THORSEN) to increase temperature, this step still would’ve been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. First, THORSEN teaches that the heating unit (THORSEN’s final heater 13A/23A) is positioned upstream of the section (holding cell 13B/23B) in the travel path of the CIP/cleaning liquid (see THORSEN at Figs. 3-5), which means any CIP/cleaning liquid heated by the final heater 13A/23A would reach the holding cell 13B/23B. Second, FUJII teaches that temperature is increased to induce boiling (as explained above), wherein heating also affects cleaning performance (see FUJII at pg. 26). Third, using a preexisting heater (final heater 13A/23A of THORSEN) means no new structures need to be added into THORSEN’s food processing system to perform the cleaning method. Given these considerations, using THORSEN’s final heater 13A/23A to increase temperature to induce boiling amounts to a simple and obvious modification that yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of THORSEN and FUJII teaches the method according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches using a cleaning liquid to clean the section, wherein the cleaning liquid inherently has a temperature.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the temperature of the cleaning liquid is “between 110 and 150℃.” But temperature is a result-effective variable that affects cleaning performance (see FUJII at pg. 26). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to discover—through routine experimentation—a workable or optimal temperature for the cleaning liquid. See MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of THORSEN and FUJII teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches a device having processing capabilities (controller or processor, see THORSEN at ¶¶ 0034, 0133, 0148, claim 24) for controlling the operations of the food processing system, i.e., for implementing the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches that the controller is programmed (see THORSEN at ¶ 0133), which means the combination implicitly teaches or reasonably suggests “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program code portions.”
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of THORSEN and FUJII (as applied to Claim 1 above), in view of NAGALINGAM et al. (US PGPUB 20190308292).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of THORSEN and FUJII teaches the method according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches the step of inducing boiling involves reducing pressure, and the step of imploding the bubbles involves increasing pressure.
The combination also teaches a counter-pressure valve (THORSEN’s valve 136/236) arranged downstream the section (downstream of THORSEN’s holding cell 13B/23B, see THORSEN at Figs. 3-5).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the step of inducing boiling involves reducing pressure by opening the counter-pressure valve, and the step of imploding the bubbles involves increasing pressure by closing the counter-pressure valve.
NAGALINGAM teaches treating the inner surfaces of a section (component 102) with the mechanical impact from bubbles (see abstract, Figs. 2-4, ¶¶ 0005, 0034), just like the present application; thus NAGALINGAM is analogous art. NAGALINGAM teaches introducing a fluid into the section (introducing water into component 102, see Figs. 2-4, ¶¶ 0050, 0066). NAGALINGAM teaches controlling pressure of the fluid to generate bubbles and implode bubbles (see ¶ 0008, claims 5-6), wherein the pressure of the fluid is controlled via a valve (e.g., valve 110) arrange downstream of the section (see Figs. 2-4, ¶¶ 0008, 0017, 0036, claims 7, 19).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of THORSEN and FUJII to use the counter-pressure valve (THORSEN’s valve 136/236) to induce boiling by reducing pressure and implode bubbles by increasing pressure, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the section. First, the combination of THORSEN and FUJII already teaches the step of inducing boiling involves reducing pressure, and the step of imploding the bubbles involves increasing pressure, wherein a counter-pressure valve (THORSEN’s valve 136/236) is already arranged downstream the section. Second, it’s already well known in the art to regulate the fluid pressure in a section using a valve arranged downstream of the section (see NAGALINGAM). Third, using a preexisting valve (THORSEN’s valve 136/236) to regulate pressure in the section means no new structure needs to be added into THORSEN’s food processing system to perform the cleaning method. Therefore, using THORSEN’s valve 136/236 to regulate pressure in the holding cell 13B/23B amounts to a simple and obvious modification. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of THORSEN and FUJII (as applied to Claim 1 above), in view of LIN et al. (Chinese Publication CN110419576A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of THORSEN and FUJII teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches the food processing system is a dairy product production equipment (see THORSEN at ¶¶ 0029, 0042, 0054, 0080, 0082).
The combination teaches wherein the cleaning liquid is a caustic liquid (see THORSEN at ¶¶ 0142-46, using NaOH), and a step of feeding out the caustic liquid from the section (see id., the CIP/cleaning solution exits the food processing system).
The combination does not explicitly teach: rinsing the section with water, introducing an acidic liquid into the section, feeding out the acidic liquid from the section, and rinsing the section with water.
LIN teaches a method of cleaning a food processing system (see ¶¶ 0002, 0008-09, 0035), just like the present application; thus LIN is analogous art. LIN teaches: introducing a caustic liquid into the section (see ¶ 0038, in step S2, an alkali solution is introduced to the dairy product production equipment); feeding out the caustic liquid from the section (see id., the alkali solution is returned to the filling equipment); rinsing the section with water (see ¶¶ 0037, 0039, in step S3, repeat step S1, in which water is introduced to the dairy product production equipment); introducing an acidic liquid into the section (see ¶ 0040, in step S4, an acidic solution is introduced to the dairy product production equipment); feeding out the acidic liquid from the section (see id., the acidic solution is returned to the filling equipment); and rinsing the section with water (see ¶¶ 0037, 0041, in step S5, repeat rinsing step S1). In other words, LIN’s steps can be summarized as:
caustic wash → feed out → rinsing → acidic wash → feed out → rinsing
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of THORSEN and FUJII to incorporate the steps of rinsing the section with water, introducing an acidic liquid into the section, feeding out the acidic liquid from the section, and rinsing the section with water, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the food processing system. It’s well known in the art to clean a food processing system (e.g., a dairy product production equipment) with a cleaning sequence of caustic wash → feed out → rinsing → acidic wash → feed out → rinsing (see LIN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of THORSEN and FUJII teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches the food processing system is a dairy product production equipment (see THORSEN at ¶¶ 0029, 0042, 0054, 0080, 0082).
As explained above, the combination teaches introducing a caustic liquid (e.g., NaOH) into the section and feeding out the caustic liquid from the section.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “rinsing the section with water”; “the cleaning liquid is an acidic liquid”; “the step of introducing the cleaning liquid is preceded by” introducing the caustic liquid into the section.
As explained above, these steps are already well known in the art. For example, LIN teaches a sequence of caustic wash → feed out → rinsing → acidic wash → feed out → rinsing, for cleaning a food processing system (e.g., a dairy product production equipment).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of THORSEN and FUJII to incorporate rinsing the section with water; using an acidic liquid as the cleaning liquid; the step of introducing the acidic liquid is preceded by introducing the caustic liquid, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the section. It’s well known in the art to clean a food processing system (e.g., a dairy product production equipment) with a cleaning sequence of caustic wash → feed out → rinsing → acidic wash → feed out → rinsing (see LIN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
BONUTTI et al. (US PGPUB 20150209457) teaches that when bubbles are formed and imploded, it releases high level of pressure and heat that are effective at disrupting and destroying infectious agents (¶ 0032).
EIDELMAN (US Patent 8840835) teaches that the collapse of bubbles creates shockwaves that enhances the killing of microorganisms (col. 12 lines 46-53).
BATES et al. (US PGPUB 20110135534) teaches that when bubbles are formed and imploded, high pressure and high temperature are generated to enhance cleaning and sanitizing effects (¶¶ 0100, 0131, 0142, 0151).
KOENIG et al. (US PGPUB 20080248556) teaches that the formation and collapse of bubbles generate significant amounts of energy that loosen particles attached to the surface being disinfected (¶ 0029).
ROSENBERG et al. (US PGPUB 20080105625) teaches that the formation and collapse of bubbles generate high pressure and high temperature that enhances cleaning (¶ 0019).
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714