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 .
The claims received 1/22/2026 are entered. Claims 6-20 are cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 1/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
The examiner notes the use of terms having all capitalized letters throughout the claims. The use of capitalized letters does not cause confusion and thus no objection is made.
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-5 include additional spaces at the start of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “belt (550)'s” (two instances)
The same is recited in claims 4 and 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
The term “close range blast” in claim 1 (and claim 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear at what distance a blast of air would no longer be “close”.
Claim 3 recites: “wherein the bifurcated housing comprises an INSIDE treatment housing section (522) and an OUTSIDE treatment housing section (524) which housing sections (522 and 524) can be separated APART, whereby for cleaning or maintenance, and returned back to CLOSED whereby for run operations;
the drum (540) and belt (550) are mounted within and slide or move between APART and CLOSED with the INSIDE treatment housing section (522); and
the OUTSIDE treatment system (604) is mounted within and slides or moves between APART and CLOSED with the OUTSIDE treatment housing section (524).”
Several of the terms lacks articles and the terms APART and CLOSED are not used in a grammatically correct manner which causes confusion. It is noted that claim 4 uses the term “disposition” to clarify.
The examiner suggests:
--wherein the bifurcated housing comprises an INSIDE treatment housing section (522) and an OUTSIDE treatment housing section (524), said housing sections (522 and 524) are configured to be separated in APART dispositions for cleaning or maintenance, and returned back to CLOSED dispositions for run operations;
the drum (540) and belt (550) are mounted within and slide between an APART disposition and a CLOSED disposition with the INSIDE treatment housing section (522); and
the OUTSIDE treatment system (604) is mounted within and slides between an APART disposition and a CLOSED disposition with the OUTSIDE treatment housing section (524).---
Claim 3 recites “slide or move”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 recites similar.
Claim 4 recites “an APART disposition” and “a CLOSED disposition” which lack antecedent basis to the APART and CLOSED dispositions from claim 3.
Claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al (US 3,774,409), in view of Malmberg et al (US 6,148,618), and alternatively in further view of Broderdorf et al (US 5,121,611).
Regarding claim 1, Persson discloses a contact drum freezer system comprising:
a hollow drum (10) mounted to revolve about an axis;
an endless product wrap belt (1 and 2) having an intake run (portion which receives product from supply device 16), an inner food product-compressing run encircling most of the drum (10) and an outer return run looping back to the intake run (as shown in figure 1 the belts have sections which significantly encircle the drum 10 and other sections spaced apart); and
a feed apparatus (16) transferring unfrozen food product onto the intake run of the product wrap belt;
wherein the drum (10) has an inside cylindrical surface and an outer cylindrical surface;
the belt (1 and 2) has an infeed run, an inner food product-compressing run and an outer return run returning to the infeed run;
wherein the belt’s inner food product-compressing run forms an outer cylindrical surface and an inner cylindrical surface compressing food product (1:4-5 “chopped or stewed spinach) against the outer cylindrical surface of the drum (10);
said contact drum freezer system further comprises an INSIDE treatment system (4) for the hollow drum (10); and
said contact drum freezer system further comprises an OUTSIDE treatment system (3) for the endless product wrap belt;
the OUTSIDE treatment system (3) comprises an annular ring of forced, chilled exhausts (2:63-68 discloses chilled glycol) arranged and disposed relative to the outer cylindrical surface of the belt’s inner food product-compressing run so as to produce an annularly-inward close range blast of such chilled fluid directly thereon.
Persson lacks chilled air for the outside treatment system. Malmberg discloses a surface freezing apparatus comprising an OUTSIDE treatment system (24) comprising forced, chilled air exhausts arranged and disposed relative to the outer surface of a belt’s inner food product-compressing run so as to produce a close range blast of such chilled fluid directly thereon.
It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the element of providing a chilled glycol spray and forced chilled air. It is known in the art to substitute glycol for air. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B. Moreover chilled air offers additional benefits, such as easier handling.
Further regarding “compressing food product against the outer cylindrical surface of the drum” as discussed above, this is taught by Persson. However the intervening belt 2 does not preclude thus compressing feature. Nonetheless Broderdorf is provided. Broderdorf discloses compressing food product (56) directly against an outer cylindrical surface of a freezing drum (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the food product directly against the drum as taught by Broderdorf in order to increase heat transfer between the drum and food product. Moreover while Persson is directed to shaping of the product, Brodoerdorf is directed to freezing preformed products, e.g. patties. It has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07.. Merely applying the known arrangement of Persson to the known purpose of freezing preformed foods is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Persson discloses the endless product wrap belt (1 and 2) but is silent concerning stainless steel. The examiner takes official notice that stainless steel is old and well known for use with food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Persson with a continuous web of stainless steel sheet for the product belt in order to maintain sanitary conditions.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al (US 3,774,409), in view of Malmberg et al (US 6,148,618), in view of Broderdorf et al (US 5,121,611), and in further view of Trembley et al (US 8,573,000).
Regarding claim 3, Persson, as modified, discloses the contact drum freezer of claim 1, including a housing (1:63-64) but is silent concerning details thereof.
Trembley discloses a freezer system including a bifurcated housing (12);
wherein the bifurcated housing includes an inside treatment housing section (16) and an outside treatment housing section (14) which can be separated apart (shown in figure 5), whereby for cleaning or maintenance (7:44-55), and returned back to closed for run operations (figure 1); the belt is mounted within and slides between apart and closed with the inside treatment housing section (16); and the outside treatment system is mounted within and slide between apart and closed with the outside treatment housing section (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Persson with a bifurcated housing, like is taught by Trembly, for the drum freezer system in order to allow for serving the components therein.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al (US 3,774,409), in view of Malmberg et al (US 6,148,618), alternatively in view of Broderdorf et al (US 5,121,611), and in further view of Onozato et al (US 8,567,308).
Regarding claim 5, Persson and Malmberg disclose the contact drum freezer system of claim 1, wherein: the annular ring (annular arrangement taught by Persson) of forced chilled-air exhausts (24 of Malmberg) comprises an annular ring of air knives (each outlet 24 is a jet which is an air knife), which cooperatively produce the annularly-inward close range blast of such chilled air directly onto the outer cylindrical surface of the belt’s inner food product-compressing run; whereby the food product receives bilateral freezing service from the contact with the drum (contact with the drum as taught by Broderdorf above) on the inside surface of the food product and the belt on the outside surface of the food product.
Persson lacks a slit-like exhaust. Malmberg is silent concern the geometry of the jets 24. Onozato discloses an air knife for food product freezing which is shaped in an elongated slit-like exhaust slot manner which individually produce a curtain of forced chilled-air (shown in figure 5b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Persson with the slit-like air knife of Onozato in order to increase heat exchange efficiency (12:60 to 13:5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 further provides particular details of the interaction of components as they slide between apart and closed dispositions. While as discussed above at least claim 3 that bifurcated housings for cleaning and maintenance are known, the prior art does not provide the system as claimed.
No known reference, whether alone or in proper combination, would yield the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zittel (US 5,456,091) bifurcated housing
Cann (US 3,879,954) opening of housing
Khoylian (US 3,393,532) air knife arrangement
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights