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 Interpretation
With respect to claims 8-12, the preamble language “to process products by high pressure processing (HPP) and moderate temperatures in horizontal machines” is construed to be a statement of intended use which does not impart any structural differences to the claimed apparatus (“carrier”). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”) (emphasis in original). Likewise, the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1963).
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.
Claims 8, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 8, the claim recites the limitations “the carrier side wall” and “the inner wall.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the claims recite the limitation “the angle between the openings and the ballast pieces.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
With respect to claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the high-pressure vessel.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelfrey (US 2023/0114240).
With respect to claims 8 and 11, Pelfrey discloses a carrier (see Pelfrey, Figs. 1 and 4) comprising one or more parts comprising a cylindrical body and inner space having one or more small openings (see Pelfrey, Fig. 1), the openings being longitudinally distributed a side wall of the carrier (see Pelfrey, Fig. 1), the carrier having one or more small pieces (62, 72) acting as a ballast (i.e. support) mounted at an inner wall on an opposite side of the openings (see Pelfrey, Figs. 2 and 3).
Pelfrey does not explicitly disclose wherein the support pieces are coated by one or several sheets of material whose adiabatic compressing heating is higher than the pressurizing fluid; and made of pieces having a higher density than the pressurizing fluid.
However, Applicant identifies high-density polyethylene (HDPE) as a preferred coating material (see Applicant’s specification, paragraph [029]). In this regard, Pelfrey clearly indicates that the support piece (62, 72) may be made of HDPE (see Pelfrey, paragraph [0050]). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily expect the same support material made of the same substance to have the same adiabatic heating and density characteristics (see Pelfrey, paragraph [0050]). “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). To be clear, Examiner sees no patentable distinction between a support member made of HDPE and one made of another material and coated with HDPE. In this regard, Pelfrey already notes that his carrier may be made of any suitable material, including metal or polymer (see Pelfrey, paragraph [0037]).
With respect to claims 9, 10, and 12, Pelfrey notes that the openings may be positioned at any suitable location and in any suitable quantity along the cylindrical body of the carrier (see Pelfrey, paragraph [0040]).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, see discussion supra at paragraph 12. Pelfrey discloses wherein the carrier may be used in the high pressure processing (HPP) of various products including foods, beverages, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and other organic materials and substances (see Pelfrey, paragraphs [0002] and [0033]-[0036]), wherein such processing may occur at pressures of 6,000 bar (600 MPa) and temperatures of 50°C (see Pelfrey, paragraphs [0007] and [0071]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Ting (US 7,220,381). Ting discloses a carrier for use in fluidic high-pressure processing of various products (see Ting, Abstract; and columns 1-2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights