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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9- 13, 19, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Roberds (U.S. Patent 5,942,265).
Regarding claim 1, Roberds discloses a thermal processing apparatus for work products, comprising:
a housing (Roberds, 22);
a powered spiral conveyor belt (Roberds, column 5 lines 65 – column 6 line7, “After slicing or slicing and dicing, the meat is placed on the continuous conveyors of specially configured spiral dryers. One type of spiral system which may be modified for use in the present invention is the Frigoscandia Gyro Compac Spiral Conveyor Model GC106. In this device, product enters at the bottom of the housing and spirals about a number of conveyor tiers and exits near the top of the equipment. The number of tiers is readily determined by those familiar with this technology by calculating the initial moisture level, the desired final moisture level, the relative humidity of the air, the total amount of water which must be removed, the temperature, and the conveyor speed.” Emphasis added) configured for supporting the work products during thermal processing, the conveyor belt moving along a spiral path arranged as a tiered stack;
a recirculation system (Roberds, fig. 2, Fans+ steam coil + refrigeration coil connected to the ducts, causes the medium to circulate; column 7 lines 30-46) configured for directing a thermal processing medium through the tiers of the spiral conveyor in a recirculating flow;
an exhaust vent (Roberds, fig. 2, return duct 28 in the spec is mis-labeled as 29 in the drawings) having an inlet proximate to an area of a high moisture content inside the housing, the exhaust vent being configured for exfiltrating the thermal processing medium having the high moisture content; and
an opening (from air in duct 30, fig. 2) configured for infiltrating the thermal processing medium from outside of the housing.
Regarding claim 2, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above, and further discloses a thermal processing apparatus wherein the work products are subjected to drying (abstract, “preparing a dry or semi-dry sausage product”, “wherein the dehydrating step is performed in a spiral dryer under turbulent air”).
Regarding claim 3, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a thermal processing apparatus wherein the recirculation system includes one or more fans (Roberds, fig. 2, “fans”) configured to flow the thermal processing medium.
Regarding claim 4, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a thermal processing apparatus comprising an exhaust air mover configured for exfiltrating the thermal processing medium through the exhaust vent (Roberds, fig. 2, that’s how the air moves).
Regarding claim 9, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a thermal processing apparatus comprising a heat exchanger (Roberds, fig. 2; column 7 lines 39-46, “steam coils” add heat to medium) configured to add heat to the recirculating flow.
Regarding claim 10, Roberds in view of Morey teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, and further teaches a thermal processing apparatus comprising a plenum configured to direct the recirculating flow toward the heat exchanger (Roberds, fig. 2, outlet 29 leads into a plenum box directing the air up into the steam coil).
Regarding claim 11, Roberds discloses a method for thermally processing work products, comprising:
moving a powered conveyor belt along a spiral path arranged as a tiered stack inside a thermal processing apparatus, wherein the conveyor belt is configured for supporting the work products during thermal processing (Roberds, column 5 lines 65 – column 6 line 9, “After slicing or slicing and dicing, the meat is placed on the continuous conveyors of specially configured spiral dryers. One type of spiral system which may be modified for use in the present invention is the Frigoscandia Gyro Compac Spiral Conveyor Model GC106. In this device, product enters at the bottom of the housing and spirals about a number of conveyor tiers and exits near the top of the equipment. The number of tiers is readily determined by those familiar with this technology by calculating the initial moisture level, the desired final moisture level, the relative humidity of the air, the total amount of water which must be removed, the temperature, and the conveyor speed.” Emphasis added);
flowing a thermal processing medium as a recirculating flow through tiers of a spiral conveyor inside a housing; exfiltrating the thermal processing medium having a high moisture content through an exhaust vent having an inlet proximate to an area of the high moisture content inside the housing (Roberds, column 5 lines 7-17, column 7 lines 30-45; dry air enters 22 from the top and humid hot air leaves from the bottoms, and refrigeration coils are needed to remove the humidity, that was invariably accumulated, and thus the location right before leaving 22 will have a high moisture content.); and
infiltrating the thermal processing medium from outside of the housing through an opening configured in the housing (Roberds, fig. 2, elements 30).
Regarding claim 12, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 11, above, and further discloses a method wherein the exhaust vent comprises an exhaust air mover (Roberds, fig. 2, the fan is connected to exhaust pipe 29).
Regarding claim 13, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 12, above, and further discloses a method wherein the exhaust air mover is a fan (Roberds, fig. 2, “fan” to move the air).
Regarding claim 19, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further discloses a method comprising: directing the recirculating flow through a plenum configured to direct the recirculating flow toward a heat exchanger (Roberds, fig. 2, outlet 29 leads into a plenum box directing the air up into the steam coil).
Regarding claim 20, Roberds teaches all the limitations of claim 19, as above, and further teaches a method comprising: adding heat to the recirculating flow by the heat exchanger (Roberds, fig. 2; column 7 lines 39-46, “steam coils” add heat to medium).
Regarding claim 21, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 11, above, and further discloses a method wherein the work products are food items (Roberds, abstract, line 2, “ preparing the pepperoni stage”).
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.
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 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberds (U.S. Patent 5,942,265).
Regarding claim 5, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 4, as above, but does not further discloses a thermal processing apparatus comprising an exhaust air mover comprising: at least one sensor selected from a group consisting of a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a pressure sensor, and a velocity sensor; and a controller having an input operatively coupled with the at least one sensor, and having an output operatively coupled with the exhaust air mover, wherein the controller is configured to regulate operation of the exhaust air mover based on the input received from the at least one sensor. However, Roberds does teach “a thermal processing apparatus comprising an exhaust air mover comprising: Roberds, column 4 line 64 – column 5 line 17, (”[C]ertain ranges are given for the humidity, temperature, conveyor speed, and air flow characteristics for the most preferred embodiment, based again on the particular volumes desired, space requirements and other needs of the assignee of the invention. After reading this specification, one skilled in the art will understand that the selection of optimum numbers for these variables can be made once the plant and overall process parameters of a particular processing installation are known. Fifth, preferred systems are disclosed for controlling the temperature and the humidity of the air conveyed to and removed from the housing for the spiral conveyor tiers.”) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include these sensors and features to understand the condition of the air and the heating, in order to control and regulate the exhaust air mover according to the different parameters.
Regarding claim 14, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 12, above, but does not further disclose a method further comprising: regulating operation of the exhaust air mover based on an input received from at least one sensor selected from a group consisting of a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a pressure sensor, and a velocity sensor, wherein an input of a controller is operatively coupled with the at least one sensor, and an output is operatively coupled with the exhaust air mover, and wherein an output of the controller is operatively coupled to the exhaust air mover. However, Roberds does teach “a thermal processing apparatus comprising an exhaust air mover comprising: Roberds, column 4 line 64 – column 5 line 17, (”[C]ertain ranges are given for the humidity, temperature, conveyor speed, and air flow characteristics for the most preferred embodiment, based again on the particular volumes desired, space requirements and other needs of the assignee of the invention. After reading this specification, one skilled in the art will understand that the selection of optimum numbers for these variables can be made once the plant and overall process parameters of a particular processing installation are known. Fifth, preferred systems are disclosed for controlling the temperature and the humidity of the air conveyed to and removed from the housing for the spiral conveyor tiers.”) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include these sensors and features to understand the condition of the air and the heating, in order to control and regulate the exhaust air mover according to the different parameters.
Claims 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberds (U.S. Patent 5,942,265) in view of Kop (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0245643).
Regarding claim 6, Roberds teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as above, but does not further teach a thermal processing apparatus wherein the opening is equipped with an intake valve for regulating an infiltration of the thermal processing medium from the outside of the housing, and wherein the controller is configured to regulate opening and closing of the intake valve. However, Kop teaches an intake valve (Kop, control means, valve 19, ¶90) for regulating an infiltration of the thermal processing medium from the outside of the housing, and wherein the controller is configured to regulate opening and closing of the intake valve. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds with the teachings of Kop, to have a control valve for controlling the air in the inlet, in order to control the “desired fluid-flow distribution” and amount, depending desired drying amount or product to be dried.
Regarding claim 15, Roberds teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, but does not further a method wherein the opening is equipped with an intake valve for regulating an infiltration of the thermal processing medium from the outside of the housing, the method further comprising: regulating operation of the intake valve by the controller. However, Kop teaches an intake valve (Kop, control means, valve 19, ¶90) for regulating an infiltration of the thermal processing medium from the outside of the housing, and wherein the controller is configured to regulate opening and closing of the intake valve. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds with the teachings of Kop, to have a control valve for controlling the air in the inlet, in order to control the “desired fluid-flow distribution” and amount, depending desired drying amount or product to be dried.
Claims 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberds (U.S. Patent 5,942,265) in view of Williams (U.S. Patent 4,582,047).
Regarding claim 7, Roberds teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as above, but does not further teach a thermal processing apparatus comprising an exhaust valve configured within the exhaust vent, wherein the controller is configured for regulating opening and closing of the exhaust valve. Roberds does teach that he allows for modification depending on condition and needs of the environment or food (Roberds, column 5, lines 7-20). However, Williams, in his oven cooker, teaches “an exhaust valve configured within the exhaust vent, wherein the controller is configured for regulating opening and closing of the exhaust valve.” (Williams, fig. 1, element 36, column 3 lines 42-56, releasing steam according to the control and desired cooking process). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds with the teachings of Williams, in order to control the exhaust and the release of the air, in order to better control the movement of the air in order to better heat the product in the oven, according to temperature or humidity, in order to most efficiently cook the food, and Roberds teaching that modifications are possibly to most efficiently cook the food according to parameters.
Regarding claim 16, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 12, as above, but does not further disclose a method wherein an exhaust valve is configured within the exhaust vent, the method further comprising: regulating operation of the exhaust valve by the controller. Roberds does teach that he allows for modification depending on condition and needs of the environment or food (Roberds, column 5, lines 7-20). However, Williams, in his oven cooker, teaches “an exhaust valve configured within the exhaust vent, wherein the controller is configured for regulating opening and closing of the exhaust valve.” (Williams, fig. 1, element 36, column 3 lines 42-56, releasing steam according to the control and desired cooking process). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds with the teachings of Williams, in order to control the exhaust and the release of the air, in order to better control the movement of the air in order to better heat the product in the oven, according to temperature or humidity, in order to most efficiently cook the food, and Roberds teaching that modifications are possibly to most efficiently cook the food according to parameters.
Claims 8 and18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberds (U.S. Patent 5,942,265) in view of Morey (U.S. Patent U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0213801.
Regarding claim 8, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a thermal processing apparatus comprising a baffle configured for separating flows of the thermal processing medium inside the thermal processing apparatus. Roberds does teach that he allows for modification depending on condition and needs of the environment or food (Roberds, column 5, lines 7-20). And Morey, in his fluid heating oven, teaches “a baffle configured for separating flows of the thermal processing medium inside the thermal processing apparatus” (Morey, ¶0005, to employ baffles…to control the direction of the thermal processing medium flow through the spiral stack…to essentially divide the spiral stack into two different thermal processing zones”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds with the teachings of Morey, to add a baffle within the heating chamber, to divide or control the heating fluid, in order to most efficiently cook or heat the food within the chamber, according to the need and type of food, and to achieve only expected results of controlling the cooking in a conventional way by putting a baffle within the chamber if desired.
Regarding claim 18, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further disclose a method comprising separating flows of the thermal processing medium inside the thermal processing apparatus by a baffle. Roberds does teach that he allows for modification depending on condition and needs of the environment or food (Roberds, column 5, lines 7-20). And Morey, in his fluid heating oven, teaches “a baffle configured for separating flows of the thermal processing medium inside the thermal processing apparatus” (Morey, ¶0005, to employ baffles…to control the direction of the thermal processing medium flow through the spiral stack…to essentially divide the spiral stack into two different thermal processing zones”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds with the teachings of Morey, to add a baffle within the heating chamber, to divide or control the heating fluid, in order to most efficiently cook or heat the food within the chamber, according to the need and type of food, and to achieve only expected results of controlling the cooking in a conventional way by putting a baffle within the chamber if desired.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberds (U.S. Patent 5,942,265) in view of Williams (U.S. Patent 4,582,047) and further in view of McVeagh (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0133637).
Regarding claim 17, Roberds in view of Williams teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as above, but it does not further teach a method wherein the exhaust valve is a butterfly valve. However, McVeagh, in his heating/cooking system, has butterfly valves to allow air to pass through. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds in view of Williams with the teachings of McVeagh, to use a conventional type of valve, the butterfly valve, in order to well control the amount of air passing through, in order to efficiently control the amount of air and the cooking process in a conventional and expected way.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberds (U.S. Patent 5,942,265) in view of Howard (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0181138).
Regarding claim 22, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 11, above, but does not further disclose a method wherein the work products are subjected to drying, the method further comprising: controlling thermal processing medium to less than 20% moisture by volume (%MV) during operation. And while a percentage is not disclosed, Roberds does teach wherein the refrigerator coils are mean to take the moisture out of the air (Roberds, column 7 line 42). However, Howard, in his cooking/heating device, teaches controlling thermal processing medium to less than 20% moisture by volume (%MV) during operation (Howard, ¶0030, Howard teaches the range of 15-45%; MPEP §2131.01). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds in view of Howard, to achieve the desired level of humidity of the heating medium (air) in order to effectively cook the food in a conventional way without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 25, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 11, above, but does not further disclose a method wherein the work products are subjected to cooking, the method further comprising: controlling thermal processing medium to greater than 20% moisture by volume (%MV) during operation. And while a percentage is not disclosed, Roberds does teach wherein the refrigerator coils are mean to take the moisture out of the air and then to further add heat (Roberds, column 7 line 42). However, Howard, in his drying/heating device, teaches controlling thermal processing medium to greater than 20% moisture by volume (%MV) during operation (Howard, ¶0030, Howard teaches the range of 15-45%; MPEP §2131.01). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds in view of Howard, to achieve the desired level of humidity of the heating medium (air) in order to effectively cook the food in a conventional way without unexpected results.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberds (U.S. Patent 5,942,265) in view of McVeagh (U.S. Patent Application 2013/ 0133637).
Regarding claim 23, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 11, above, but does not further disclose a method wherein the work products are subjected to drying, the method further comprising: controlling thermal processing medium to less than 5% moisture by volume (%MV) during operation. And while a percentage is not disclosed, Roberds does teach wherein the refrigerator coils are mean to take the moisture out of the air (Roberds, column 7 line 42). However, McVeagh teaches controlling the conditions of a cooking system including “humidity, temperature, gas flow”, and other factors, and they system including a “spiral rack”, (McVeagh, abstract, ¶57) in order to optimize the conditions for the particular food, and McVeagh teaches a dry convection process, ideally removing as much water from the air as possible (McVeagh, ¶88) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds with the teachings of McVeagh, to be able to adjust the conditions of a heating/drying oven a depending on the desired effect or the type of food, and it would have been obvious to meet the limitations of the claim, the percentage, if it was desired to dry out or dry cook a food, depending on the food requirements and the operator’s choice (McVeagh, Example 8, ¶88 offers an example of a food needing dryness and offering a process of a “dry convection heating process may be preferred”, and thus it would be obvious to have the inlet air have less than the claimed humidity, ideally, nearing 0%).
Regarding claim 24, Roberds discloses all the limitations of claim 11, above, but does not further disclose a method wherein the work products are subjected to drying, the method further comprising: controlling thermal processing medium to less than 3% moisture by volume (%MV) during operation. And while a percentage is not disclosed, Roberds does teach wherein the refrigerator coils are mean to take the moisture out of the air (Roberds, column 7 line 42). However, McVeagh teaches controlling the conditions of a cooking system including “humidity, temperature, gas flow”, and other factors, and they system including a “spiral rack”, (McVeagh, abstract, ¶57) in order to optimize the conditions for the particular food, and McVeagh teaches a dry convection process, ideally removing as much water from the air as possible (McVeagh, ¶88) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Roberds with the teachings of McVeagh, to be able to adjust the conditions of a heating/drying oven a depending on the desired effect or the type of food, and it would have been obvious to meet the limitations of the claim, the percentage, if it was desired to dry out or dry cook a food, depending on the food requirements and the operator’s choice (McVeagh, Example 8, ¶88 offers an example of a food needing dryness and offering a process of a “dry convection heating process may be preferred”, and thus it would be obvious to have the inlet air have less than the claimed humidity, ideally, nearing 0%).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights