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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/01/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11-15, and 17 have been amended, claims 18-19 and 21-24 have been withdrawn, claim 2 has been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3-17, and 20 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (Claim Interpretation) and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections from previous Office Action.
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 and 3-20 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 "nozzles" at line 10 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how nozzles comprise nozzles, and thus it seems redundant unless they are intended to be something different such as some sort of sub-nozzle. Clarification is needed.
In claim 6, it is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the nozzles” at lines 1-2 and “the nozzles” and “nozzles” as recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 10 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the nozzles).
In claim 8, there is a similar issue with the limitation “the nozzles” at line 2 as set forth in claim 6
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claims 1.
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US 4,254,699) in view of Larsen (US 1,914,342).
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).
Skinner et al. discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above except for further comprising, in the inside of the container, a central impact element upon which cereal grain which flows in through the container inlet hits, and which deflects the cereal grain onwards so as to shape a flow of cereal grain which flows into the container inlet and falls downwards, wherein the nozzles comprise nozzles that are arranged below the central impact element and are distributed along a periphery of the container, along a circumference of a container wall, to spray or steam or spray and steam toward the inside of the container and are thereby arranged such that liquid and/or steam which exits through them hits the cereal grain below central impact element whilst the cereal grain is in freefall.
However, Larsen teaches further comprising, in the inside of the container 6 (fig. 6, i.e. called a pin), a central impact element (41, i.e. called a dispersing cone) upon which cereal grain (i.e. grains as oats, barley, and the like) which flows in through the container inlet (40) hits, and which deflects the cereal grain onwards so as to shape a flow of cereal grain which flows into the container inlet and falls downwards (see figure 6), wherein the nozzles (48) comprise nozzles that are arranged below the central impact element (41, i.e. called a dispersing cone) and are distributed along a periphery of the container 6 (fig. 6, i.e. called a pin), along a circumference of a container wall (not labeled, see figure 6), to spray or steam or spray and steam (i.e. liquid) toward the inside of the container 6 (fig. 6, i.e. called a pin) and are thereby arranged such that liquid and/or steam which exits through them hits the cereal grain (i.e. grains as oats, barley, and the like) below central impact element (41, i.e. called a dispersing cone) whilst the cereal grain is in freefall (page 4, lines 115 – page 5, lines 20).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of treating 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 Larsen before him or her, to include a dispersing cone and spraying nozzles arrangements of Larsen because the provision of apparatus which is adapted to effectively and efficiently treating the grain and which at the same time is exceedingly simple in construction, of low first cost and capable of being maintained at very moderate cost. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the grain can be effectively treated and which can readily be assembled and operated under widely varying conditions as to the handling and housing or storing of the grain (page 1, lines 81-85).
With respect to claim 3, Skinner in view of Larsen discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Skinner further discloses further 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) below the central impact element is segmented at least in regions (col. 4, lines 3-42).
With respect to claim 4, Skinner in view of Larsen 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 Larsen discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Larsen further discloses wherein the central impact element (41, i.e. called a dispersing cone) is equipped to defines a throughflow cross section area which comprises a central ring (not shown) and rays running radially outwards therefrom (see figure 6).
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 Larsen before him or her, to include a dispersing cone arrangements of Larsen because the provision of apparatus which is adapted to effectively and efficiently treating the grain and which at the same time is exceedingly simple in construction, of low first cost and capable of being maintained at very moderate cost. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the grain can be effectively treated and which can readily be assembled and operated under widely varying conditions as to the handling and housing or storing of the grain (page 1, lines 81-85).
With respect to claim 6, Skinner in view of Larsen discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Larsen further discloses wherein the nozzles further comprise inner nozzles (43, 48) with a spray direction from the inside to the outside (see figure 6).
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 Larsen before him or her, to include nozzles arrangements of Larsen because the provision of apparatus which is adapted to effectively and efficiently treating the grain and which at the same time is exceedingly simple in construction, of low first cost and capable of being maintained at very moderate cost. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the grain can be effectively treated and which can readily be assembled and operated under widely varying conditions as to the handling and housing or storing of the grain (page 1, lines 81-85).
With respect to claim 7, Skinner in view of Larsen discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Larsen further discloses wherein the inner nozzles (43, 48) are arranged on a holder of a central impact element (41, i.e. called a dispersing cone).
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 Larsen before him or her, to include nozzles arrangements of Larsen because the provision of apparatus which is adapted to effectively and efficiently treating the grain and which at the same time is exceedingly simple in construction, of low first cost and capable of being maintained at very moderate cost. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the grain can be effectively treated and which can readily be assembled and operated under widely varying conditions as to the handling and housing or storing of the grain (page 1, lines 81-85).
With respect to claim 8, Skinner in view of Larsen discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Larsen further discloses wherein at least some of the nozzles (43, 48) are designed as fan jet nozzles (page 3, lines 12-20).
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 Larsen before him or her, to include nozzles arrangements of Larsen because the provision of apparatus which is adapted to effectively and efficiently treating the grain and which at the same time is exceedingly simple in construction, of low first cost and capable of being maintained at very moderate cost. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the grain can be effectively treated and which can readily be assembled and operated under widely varying conditions as to the handling and housing or storing of the grain (page 1, lines 81-85).
With respect to claim 9, Skinner in view of Larsen 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 Larsen 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 Larsen (US 1,914,342) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bronnert (US 4,776,268).
Regarding claim 11, Skinner in view of Larsen discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a plurality of cleaning nozzles configured to introduce a cleaning fluid into the container, in order to rinse away surfaces of the container wall.
However, Bronnert teaches a plurality of cleaning nozzles 26, 81 (fig. 7, i.e. the porous distribution cylinder) configured to introduce a cleaning fluid into the container (10, i.e. a vessel), in order to rinse away surfaces of the container wall a (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 Larsen 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 Larsen 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 extends 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 Larsen 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 Larsen 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 central impact element (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 f central impact element (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 Larsen 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, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US 4,254,699) in view of Larsen (US 1,914,342) 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 Larsen 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 central impact element and configured to closed-loop control a flow of the cereal grain through the container outlet.
However, Wyatt teaches an accumulation closed-loop control device 106, 110 (fig. 2, i.e. called slide members) which is arranged below the central impact element 90 (fig. 2, i.e. called a diffuser) and configured to closed-loop control a flow of the cereal grain (47) through the container outlet (82) (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 Larsen 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 16, Skinner in view of Larsen 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 Larsen 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 Larsen 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), configured to lead away a cleaning fluid out of the inside of the container (16) through the opening and the hollow shaft without this flowing through the container outlet (82) when an outlet flap is closed.
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 Larsen 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 Larsen and Wyatt discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Larsen further discloses a control (19, 24, 45, 50) for metering the fluid in dependence on a measured humidity of the cereal grain (i.e. grains as oats, barley, and the like) (page 4, lines 65-77).
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 Larsen and Bronnert before him or her, to include such a control arrangements of Larsen because the provision of apparatus which is adapted to effectively and efficiently treating the grain and which at the same time is exceedingly simple in construction, of low first cost and capable of being maintained at very moderate cost. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the grain can be effectively treated and which can readily be assembled and operated under widely varying conditions as to the handling and housing or storing of the grain (page 1, lines 81-85).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US 4,254,699) in view of Larsen (US 1,914,342) and Wyatt et al. (US 4,817,518) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Satake (US 4,829,891).
Regarding claim 15, Skinner in view of Larsen and Wyatt et al. discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for at least one level sensor, configured to determine a reaching of a level of a cereal grain level above the accumulation closed-loop control device for the closed-loop control of a throughput quantity through the accumulation closed-loop control device.
However, Satake teaches at least one level sensor (94, i.e. a level sensor), configured to determine a 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) 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).
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 Larsen 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maruyama (US 6,000,321).
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 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
Prosecution Insights