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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 and 20 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 18-19 and 21-24 have been withdrawn from prosecution.
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: “a flow guidance device” in claims 1-3, 5, 11, and 13-14.
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.
Abstract of the instant application US publication No. (US 2024/0181464) discloses a wetting device for cereal grain includes a container with a container inlet and a container outlet that are arranged such that cereal grain which flows into the container inlet gets to the container outlet due to the action of gravity. A plurality of nozzles serve for wetting the cereal grain in the inside of the container. The wetting device further includes a flow guidance device, for example formed by impact elements, in the inside of the container, by way of which flow guidance device a flow of cereal grain which flows into the container inlet and falls downwards is shaped. The nozzles are arranged such that liquid and/or steam which exits through them hits the cereal grain below the flow guidance device whilst the cereal grain is in freefall.
Paragraph [0017] discloses very generally, by way of the design of the flow guidance device with radially running segmenting elements, one can generate a falling flow which is segmented, for example by way of its forming radially running rays in the horizontal cross section. By way of this, the surface is particularly large and in particular nozzles which act from the outside and are distributed along the periphery of the container can wet in a particularly efficient manner by way of them being arranged, for example, in the circumferential direction (azimuthally) between the segments. For this purpose, at least three outer nozzles which are distributed along the circumference can be present, i.e., an outer nozzle is situated each at at least three different azimuthal positions. In particular, at least one outer nozzle can each be present per intermediate space between two outer (radial) impact elements.
Paragraph [0022] discloses in particular, the contoured falling flow is shaped by a flow guidance device which is arranged in the inside of the container, generally above the nozzles. A flow of cereal grain which gets into the container through an inlet—which in a conventional manner can be closable by way of an inlet slide or inlet flap—is shaped in the desired surface-optimising manner by way of the flow guidance device. The flow guidance device delays and shapes the vertical cereal grain flow in a manner such that a falling flow having a large surface area (lateral surface area) and being as easy as possible to wet arises. The falling flow is sprayed below the flow guidance device at a position at which the grain is in freefall.
Paragraph [0023] discloses the flow guidance device therefore subdivides the interior of the container into a collection region above the flow guidance device and a falling region below the flow guidance device.
Paragraph [0025] disclose the grain is only sprayed whilst it falls downwards below the flow guidance device and not, for example, whilst it hits the flow guidance device or slides along this for some distance.
Paragraph [0026] discloses the grain is only deflected on a plane of the flow guidance device, and from there it drops through the inside of the container without being subjected to a further deflection. In contrast to arrangements with for example cascade-like guide surfaces, there can therefore be no spaces which are shielded by the flow guidance device, the cleaning of which requiring quite some effort. In particular, the wetting device can be designed such that the grain in freefall downwards from the flow guidance device can directly hit a container wall which delimits the container to the bottom or, depending on the throughput, grain which has already collected and piled up there, without yet further deflecting elements, screens or the like being present.
Paragraph [0028] discloses such a flow guidance device can first and foremost include a central impact element whose dimensions are matched to the inlet such that essentially all cereal grain kernels which flown in through the inlet hit the central impact element—or given an accumulation, the already accumulated cereal grain—and are prevented from falling downwards through the container directly from the inlet without being braked. Sometimes, the central impact element is dimensioned and arranged such that it lies below the inlet in the line of fall and covers the complete cross-sectional area (in a projection along the vertical) of this. The upwardly pointing impact surface in particular can be convexly curved and for example be rotationally symmetrical about the vertical axis, in order to deflect of the cereal grain kernels uniformly to all sides.
Paragraph [0029] discloses the flow guidance device can furthermore include radially running, segmenting elements (outer impact elements) which in an outer region structure and segment the falling flow in the circumferential direction, so that the mentioned rays form in a horizontal cross section. These outer impact elements can furthermore be arranged in a manner ascending outwards, thus form a base which tapers downwards towards the axis and which is interrupted towards the centre and by intermediate spaces between the impact elements. For this reason, given a particularly large flow of cereal grain and an accumulation which is caused by way of this, the radius of the rays will automatically enlarge, which is why the flow guidance device acts in a self-regulating manner: given a larger flow of cereal grain, the lateral surface of the falling flow increases whilst the density of the cereal grain and the thickness of the falling flow contours remains the same and the efficiency of the wetting is not compromised.
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 7 and 11-17 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 7 recites the limitation "the circumference of a regionally circularly cylindrical container wall" at lines 3-4 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 11-12, 14-15, and 17, the phrase "can be" in the claims renders the claims indefinite for not providing positive limitation because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected claims 11 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US 4,254,699) in view of Satake (US 4,829,891).
Regarding claim 1, Skinner et al. discloses a wetting device (title, i.e. called a liquid-solid contacting apparatus) for cereal grain (i.e. solid particles, e.g. corn grains), comprising a container 10 (fig. 1, i.e. a tank) with a container inlet (Fig. 2, 66, 68, i.e. openings) and a container outlet (14) which are arranged such that cereal grain (i.e. solid particles, e.g. corn grains) which flows into the container inlet (68, i.e. openings) gets to the container outlet (14) due to the action of gravity (abstract),
further comprising a flow guidance device (60, i.e. called baffles) in the inside of the container (10), by way of which a flow of cereal grain (i.e. solid particles, e.g. corn grains) which flows into the container inlet (66, 68, i.e. openings) and falls downwards is shaped.
Skinner discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the wetting device comprises a plurality of nozzles in order to wet the cereal grain in an inside of the container, wherein the nozzles are arranged such that liquid and/or steam which exits through them hits the cereal grain below the flow guidance device whilst the cereal grain is in freefall.
However, Satake teaches wherein the wetting device comprises a plurality of nozzles 82 (fig. 1) in order to wet the cereal grain (i.e. rice grains) in an inside of the container (1), wherein the nozzles (82) are arranged such that liquid and/or steam which exits through them hits the cereal grain (i.e. rice grains) below the flow guidance device (74, 75, 274, i.e. conical diffusion members) whilst the cereal grain (i.e. rice grains) is in freefall (col. 5, lines 1-30).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing grains. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner and Satake before him or her, to modify the nozzle(s) of Skinner to include the nozzles of Satake with extension through the tank (10) because it is necessary to clean the inner wall surface of the humidifying tank/vessel so as to remove deposits therefrom. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it enhances the operating efficiency and/or performance.
With respect to claim 2, Skinner in view of Satake discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Satake further discloses wherein the flow guidance device comprises a central impact element 74, 75, 274 (i.e. called a conical diffusion member), upon which cereal grain (i.e. rice grains) which flows in through the container (1) inlet hits, and which deflects the cereal grain (i.e. rice grains) onwards.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner and Satake before him or her, to include such impact element(s) of Satake because distribution pipe which is rotatably arranged within the humidifying vessel. A plurality of nozzles are connected to the distribution pipe so as to be directed tangentially with respect to the peripheral surface of the distribution pipe. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it enhances the operating efficiency or performance.
With respect to claim 3, Skinner in view of Satake discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Skinner further discloses wherein the flow guidance device comprises a plurality of outer impact elements (60, i.e. called baffles), by way of which the flow of cereal grain (i.e. solid particles, e.g. corn grains) which falls downwards from the flow guidance device is segmented at least in regions (col. 4, lines 3-42).
With respect to claim 4, Skinner in view of Satake discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Skinner further discloses wherein the outer impact elements (60, i.e. called baffles) are arranged in a manner ascending outwards (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 5, Skinner in view of Satake discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Skinner further discloses wherein the flow guidance device defines a throughflow cross section area which comprises a central ring (i.e. the central area) and rays running radially outwards therefrom (see figure 5).
With respect to claim 6, Skinner in view of Satake discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Satake further discloses wherein the nozzles comprise inner nozzles (82) with a spray direction from the inside to the outside (see figure 1), as well as outer nozzles (77) with a spray direction from the outside to the inside (see figure 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner and Satake before him or her, to include such nozzles arrangements of Satake because distribution pipe which is rotatably arranged within the humidifying vessel. A plurality of nozzles are connected to the distribution pipe so as to be directed tangentially with respect to the peripheral surface of the distribution pipe. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it enhances the operating efficiency or performance.
With respect to claim 7, Skinner in view of Satake discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Satake further discloses wherein the inner nozzles (82) are substantially arranged on a holder of a central impact element and/or the outer nozzles are arranged along the circumference of a regionally circularly cylindrical container wall of the container (col. 9, lines 27-52).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner and Satake before him or her, to include such nozzles arrangements of Satake because distribution pipe which is rotatably arranged within the humidifying vessel. A plurality of nozzles are connected to the distribution pipe so as to be directed tangentially with respect to the peripheral surface of the distribution pipe. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it enhances the operating efficiency or performance.
With respect to claim 8, Skinner in view of Satake discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Satake further discloses wherein at least some of the nozzles (82) are designed as fan jet nozzles (col. 9, lines 39-40, i.e. The pressurized water is forcibly delivered to the distribution pipe 81).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner and Satake before him or her, to include such nozzles arrangements of Satake because distribution pipe which is rotatably arranged within the humidifying vessel. A plurality of nozzles are connected to the distribution pipe so as to be directed tangentially with respect to the peripheral surface of the distribution pipe. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it enhances the operating efficiency or performance.
With respect to claim 9, Skinner in view of Satake discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Skinner further discloses wherein the container (10) is free of inner horizontal surfaces below the container inlet (66, 68, i.e. openings), on which surfaces cereal grain (i.e. solid particles, e.g. corn grains) could remain lying (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 10, Skinner in view of Satake discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Skinner further discloses which is free of elements which move during normal usage (see figure 1, no elements in the upper tank 10 except for a shaft 20).
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US 4,254,699) in view of Satake (US 4,829,891) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bronnert (US 4,776,268).
Regarding claim 11, Skinner in view of Satake discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a plurality of cleaning nozzles through which a cleaning fluid can be introduced into the container, in order to rinse away surfaces of the container wall as well as of the flow guidance device.
However, Bronnert teaches a plurality of cleaning nozzles 26, 81 (fig. 7, i.e. the porous distribution cylinder) through which a cleaning fluid can be introduced into the container (10, i.e. a vessel), in order to rinse away surfaces of the container wall as well as of the flow guidance device (i.e. grooves, directional fins or vanes or other devices) (abstract; col. 4, lines 22-34; col. 5, lines 24-33).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the problem-solving area of cleaning interior surfaces of vessel. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner in view of Satake and Bronnert before him or her, to include such cleaning nozzles of Bronnert because it is merely necessary to inject cleaning fluid solutions through the product inlet line into the annular space thereby permitting the cleaning solution to flow through the nozzles and space covering the entire interior of the vessel with cleaning solution. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it minimizes the possibility of the product contacting any exposed hot surface within the vessel (col. 7, lines 16-18).
With respect to claim 12, Skinner in view of Satake and Bronnert discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bronnert further discloses a plurality of cleaning spray balls (40, 40a, i.e. spray nozzles) and/or a plurality of cleaning lances with a nozzle element which can be extended into the container inside and is each with at least one of the cleaning nozzles (col. 6, lines 53-67).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner in view of Satake and Bronnert before him or her, to include such cleaning spray of Bronnert because it is merely necessary to inject cleaning fluid solutions through the product inlet line into the annular space thereby permitting the cleaning solution to flow through the nozzles and space covering the entire interior of the vessel with cleaning solution. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it minimizes the possibility of the product contacting any exposed hot surface within the vessel (col. 7, lines 16-18).
With respect to claim 13, Skinner in view of Satake and Bronnert discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bronnert further discloses wherein the cleaning nozzles comprise upper cleaning nozzles 40 (figs. 2-3, i.e. the upper portion 12) which are arranged above the flow guidance device (i.e. grooves, directional fins or vanes or other devices), and lower cleaning nozzles (26, see figure 4, i.e. lower portion 13) which are arranged below the flow guidance device (i.e. grooves, directional fins or vanes or other devices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner in view of Satake and Bronnert before him or her, to include such nozzles arrangements of Bronnert because it is merely necessary to inject cleaning fluid solutions through the product inlet line into the annular space thereby permitting the cleaning solution to flow through the nozzles and space covering the entire interior of the vessel with cleaning solution. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it minimizes the possibility of the product contacting any exposed hot surface within the vessel (col. 7, lines 16-18).
Claim(s) 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US 4,254,699) in view of Satake (US 4,829,891) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wyatt et al. (US 4,817,518).
Regarding claim 14, Skinner in view of Satake discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for an accumulation closed-loop control device which is arranged below the flow guidance device and through which a flow of the cereal grain through the container outlet can be closed-loop controlled.
However, Wyatt teaches an accumulation closed-loop control device 106, 110 (fig. 2, i.e. called slide members) which is arranged below the flow guidance device 90 (fig. 2, i.e. called a diffuser) and through which a flow of the cereal grain (47) through the container outlet (82) can be closed-loop controlled (col. 11, lines 67 – col. 12, lines 7).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing grains. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner in view of Satake and Wyatt before him or her, to include such control mechanism of Wyatt because the grain discharge system increases the efficiency of the system and promotes a more homogeneous grain treatment the side effect of which is increased vessel pressure which must be addressed for both structural and safety reasons. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides uniformly passed through and discharged from the grain treatment system (abstract).
With respect to claim 15, Skinner in view of Satake and Wyatt discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Satake further discloses at least one level sensor (94, i.e. a level sensor), by way of which the reaching of a level of a cereal grain level (i.e. rice grains level) above the accumulation closed-loop control device (23, i.e. a rotary valve) can be determined, for the closed-loop control of a throughput quantity through the accumulation closed-loop control device (23, i.e. a rotary valve) (col. 5, lines 42-47; col. 7, lines 58-col. 8, lines 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner in view of Satake and Wyatt before him or her, to include such a level sensor of Satake because the grain discharge system
increases the efficiency of the system and promotes a more homogeneous grain treatment the side effect of which is increased vessel pressure which must be addressed for both structural and safety reasons. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides uniformly passed through and enhanced the operating efficiency or performance.
With respect to claim 16, Skinner in view of Satake and Wyatt discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wyatt further discloses wherein the accumulation closed-loop control device 106, 110 (fig. 2, i.e. called slide members) is an accumulation closed-loop control flap with at least two flap wings (103, 105, 107, 109, i.e. the upper and lower slide plates).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner in view of Satake and Wyatt before him or her, to include such control mechanism of Wyatt because the grain discharge
system increases the efficiency of the system and promotes a more homogeneous grain
treatment the side effect of which is increased vessel pressure which must be addressed for both structural and safety reasons. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides uniformly passed through and discharged from the grain treatment system (abstract).
With respect to claim 17, Skinner in view of Satake and Wyatt discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wyatt further discloses an outlet flap (109) with a hollow shaft that is connected to at least one opening (i.e. the discharged grain 82 opening), said opening in a closed state of the outlet flap (109) being open to the inside of the container (16), wherein given a closed outlet flap cleaning fluid (105) can be led away out of the inside of the container (16) through the opening and the hollow shaft without this flowing through the container outlet (82).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner in view of Satake and Wyatt before him or her, to include such outlet flap/cover/plate of Wyatt because the grain discharge
system increases the efficiency of the system and promotes a more homogeneous grain
treatment the side effect of which is increased vessel pressure which must be addressed for both structural and safety reasons. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides uniformly passed through and discharged from the grain treatment system (abstract).
With respect to claim 20, Skinner in view of Satake and Wyatt discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Satake further discloses a control (100, i.e. a control system) for metering the fluid in dependence on a measured humidity of the cereal grain (i.e. rice grains) (col. 5, lines 62-64).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Skinner in view of Satake and Wyatt before him or her, to include such a control of Satake because the grain discharge system
increases the efficiency of the system and promotes a more homogeneous grain treatment the side effect of which is increased vessel pressure which must be addressed for both structural and safety reasons. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides uniformly passed through and enhanced the operating efficiency or performance.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wisdom et al. (US 4,436,458). Scott (US 2,900,256).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761