DETAILED ACTION
Application 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 action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 01/08/2024 & 07/28/2026. Claim(s) 1–20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1–9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2026.
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:
“vacuum generating means suitable for reducing a pressure inside said drying chamber to a value below atmospheric pressure” in claim 10, which has been interpreted to mean “a vacuum pump”;
“a generator of electromagnetic waves in claim 10, which has been interpreted to mean “a solid-state generator”;
“weight detecting means configured to measure a decrease in weight of said foodstuffs” in claim 13, which has been interpreted to mean “a load cell system”;
“pressure detecting means configured to measure the pressure inside the drying chamber” in claim 20, which has been interpreted to mean “a pressure gauge or vacuum gauge”;
“temperature detecting means configured to measure the temperature of said foodstuffs inside said drying chamber” in claim 20, which has been interpreted to mean “a temperature sensor”; and
“chiller means suitable for condensing moisture evaporated from said foodstuffs during their drying” in claim 20 which has been interpreted to mean “a cooling coil”.
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.
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 § 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 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.
Claims 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0295838 to Cogo et al in view of Official Notice.
With regard to claim 10, Cogo discloses an apparatus for drying foodstuffs of plant or animal origin (abstract), comprising a casing within which a drying chamber (21) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0071), heating means (22, 23) for heating said foodstuffs in said drying chamber (21) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0071), wherein the fact that said casing is made watertight (¶ 0087; chamber is necessarily airtight/watertight in order to maintain a vacuum), wherein said drying chamber is connected to vacuum generating means (40) (¶ 0087), suitable for reducing a pressure inside said drying chamber (21) to a value below atmospheric pressure (¶ 0087); that said heating means comprise at least one pair of electrodes (23, 24; note: the Specification sometimes cites to an electrode as “22,” but that is an obvious grammatical mistake since “22” also refers to a second conveying device) and a generator of electromagnetic waves (¶ 0071), wherein said at least one pair of electrodes (23, 24) comprises a first electrode (22) connected to said generator of electromagnetic waves (¶ 0087)
Cogo fails to explicitly disclose that the second electrode is connected to ground. However, an electromagnetic field is created by having a voltage differential between the electrodes. It is old and well-known in the art to ground one electrode (which is simply a reference voltage) while generating a voltage in the other electrode to create a voltage differential. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the drying apparatus of Cogo (assuming Cogo does not already operate that way) with a grounded electrode because such a combination would have been one of a limited number of ways of creating a voltage differential (the other being to produce two different non-grounded voltages in the electrodes, which would increase the complexity and cost of the apparatus to achieve the same result).
With regard to claim 11, Cogo further discloses at least one support element (18, 22) on which the foodstuffs to be dried can be arranged (¶¶ 0091–0092), said at least one support element (18, 22) being arranged inside said drying chamber (21) between said at least one pair of electrodes (23, 24) (Figs. 2 & 7; ¶¶ 0069, 0071).
With regard to claim 12, Cogo fails to explicitly state that said support element (18, 22) is made of a material transparent to electromagnetic waves generated by said generator of electromagnetic waves. However, it is inherent that the support element is made of a material transparent to electromagnetic waves generated by said generator of electromagnetic waves, otherwise the device would not work because if the electromagnetic waves could be absorbed by the support element, they would not be absorbed by the pasta and the device would not operate as described by Cogo.
With regard to claim 13, Cogo further discloses said support element comprises a plurality of support elements (18, 22) (¶ 0069; Fig. 2), wherein said at least one pair of electrodes (23, 24) comprises a plurality of electrode pairs (23, 24) (Fig. 10; ¶ 0071), wherein each support element (18, 22) of said plurality of support elements (18, 22) is located between an electrode pair (23, 24) of said plurality of electrode pairs (23, 24) (Figs. 2 & 7; ¶¶ 0069, 0071).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogo in view of Official Notice, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2020/0000111 to Sandelman.
Cogo fails to disclose a weight detecting means configured to measure a decrease in weight of said foodstuffs during said drying. Sandelman teaches weight detecting means (31) configured to measure a decrease in weight of said foodstuffs during said drying (¶ 0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying apparatus of Cogo with the scale of Sandelman because such a combination would have had the added benefit of enabling a user to monitor the drying process to ensure an adequate amount of moisture has been removed.
Claims 15–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogo in view of Official Notice, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Zhou Hongxue et al: “Developing a screw conveyor in radio frequency system to improve heating uniformity in granular products”, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, vol. 12, no. 3, 2019, pp 174–179, XP055899997, ISSN: 1934-6344, DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20191203.4227 (submitted by Applicant; hereinafter, “Zhou”).
With regard to claim 15, Cogo fails to disclose said at least one support element is in the form of a basin within which is arranged a stirring device comprising a shaft, operable to rotate about a longitudinal axis thereof, wherein the shaft is provided with a plurality of paddles shaped to advance the foodstuffs introduced into the basin between a first end of the basin and a second end of the basin, when the shaft is set to rotate. Zhou teaches at least one support element is in the form of a basin within which is arranged a stirring device comprising a shaft (abstract; Fig. 2), operable to rotate about a longitudinal axis thereof (abstract; Fig. 2), wherein the shaft is provided with a plurality of paddles shaped to advance the foodstuffs introduced into the basin between a first end of the basin and a second end of the basin (abstract; Fig. 2), when the shaft is set to rotate (abstract; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying apparatus of Cogo with the screw conveyor of Zhou because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing the foodstuffs to be moved and mixed to ensure uniform exposure to RF.
With regard to claim 16, Cogo as previously combined with Zhou further discloses said shaft is made of a material transparent to the electromagnetic waves generated by said generator of electromagnetic waves (Zhou: abstract; Fig. 2) and is driven to rotate by a motor via a gear reducer (Zhou: pg 175).
With regard to claim 17, Cogo further discloses a first star valve (46) through which said foodstuffs can be introduced into said drying chamber (21) at the first end of the basin (Fig. 6; ¶ 0100).
With regard to claim 18, Cogo further discloses a second star valve (51) through which said foodstuffs, at the end of said drying, can be extracted from the drying chamber (21) at the second end of the basin (Fig. 6; ¶ 0103).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogo in view of Official Notice, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2104/0124354 to Pagnozzi.
Cogo fails to disclose said drying chamber is provided with a watertight door. Pagnozzi teaches a drying chamber (1) provided with a watertight door (4) (¶ 0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying apparatus of Cogo with the watertight door of Pagnozzi because such a combination would have had the added benefit of preventing leakage of air/moisture into the drying chamber.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogo in view of Official Notice, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2021/0207886 to Parker.
Cogo fails to disclose pressure detecting means configured to measure the pressure inside said drying chamber and temperature detecting means configured to measure the temperature of said foodstuffs inside said drying chamber and chiller means suitable for condensing moisture evaporated from said foodstuffs during their drying. Parker teaches pressure detecting means (208C) configured to measure the pressure inside said drying chamber (¶ 0059) and temperature detecting means (208A) configured to measure the temperature of [a material] inside said drying chamber (¶ 0057) and chiller means (148) suitable for condensing moisture evaporated from said [material] during their drying (¶ 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying apparatus of Cogo with the sensors and condenser of Parker because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing process information to a controller for monitoring and adjustment and allowing moisture to be removed from the process air.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights