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 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 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perren et al. (EP2604122; English translation provided).
Perren teaches with respect to Independent claim 1, a treatment system for food (English translation pg. 3 par. 3)
Perren teaches a treatment chamber (fig. 1 ref. 3; pg. 8 2nd to last par.), wherein the treatment chamber includes an inlet (fig. 1 schematic representation from steam supply ref. 5, 7; pg. 8 last line)
one or more temperature sensors mounted within the treatment chamber (pg. 8 2nd to last par. Ref. 8; fig. 1 ref. 8), wherein the one or more temperature sensors generate one or more temperature readings (pg. 8 2nd to last par)
a steam generator (pg. 8 last line; steam supply device for supplying steam), wherein a processor (pg. 6 3rd par. Control/regulating unit) of a computing system (pg. 6 3rd par. Computer) controls delivery of steam from the steam generator to the inlet of the treatment chamber (pg. 6 4th par. Connected to device for charging interior with steam) based at least in part on the one or more generated temperature readings (pg. 6 5th par, 6th par. Temp. time pairs; variable temperature as function of time; pg. 7 5th, 6th par. Pasteurization vs. sterilization temperatures).
With respect to the pre-amble, it is noted the recitation in the claim that the treatment system is for “produce” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Perren discloses the same claimed apparatus for “foods suitable for human consumption” (pg. 3 par. 3), it is clear that the treatment chamber of Perren would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. produce as presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claim 12, the processor determines that the one or more generated temperature readings satisfy a temperature threshold, and wherein the processor maintains the temperature threshold within the treatment chamber (pg. 7 par. 8 temperature dependent)
Claim 13, the processor controls a rate of temperature change based on the one or more generated temperature readings (pg. 7 par. 8 time dependent), and wherein the processor controls a steam injection valve (pg. 3 last par.) such that the rate of temperature change does not exceed a temperature rate change threshold (pg 4 3rd to last par. Operating temperature; pg. 7 par. 8 time dependent).
Claim 14, further comprising an air circulation unit, wherein the processor controls the air circulation unit to circulate air within the treatment chamber (pg. 9 2nd par. Tempering device).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe et al. (6800246) in view of Perren et al. (EP2604122; English translation provided).
Howe teaches with respect to Independent claim 1, a produce treatment system (col. 3 line 61) comprising;
a treatment chamber (fig. 1 ref. 2; col. 5 lines 31-32), wherein the treatment chamber includes an inlet (fig. 1 ref. 6, ref. 5)
one or more temperature sensors mounted within the treatment chamber (fig. 1 ref. 10), wherein the one or more temperature sensors generate one or more temperature readings (col. 5 lines 32-33)
a steam generator (col. 5 lines 65-67), wherein a controller controls delivery of steam from the steam generator to the inlet of the treatment chamber (col. 5 lines 65-68) based at least in part on the one or more generated temperature readings (pg. 6 lines 25-28; pre-selected temperature).
Howe is silent to a processor of a computing system.
Howe teaches steam treatment of foods and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived to look to the art of steam treatment of foods.
Perren teaches a treatment chamber (fig. 1 ref. 3; pg. 8 2nd to last par.), wherein the treatment chamber includes an inlet (fig. 1 schematic representation from steam supply ref. 5, 7; pg. 8 last line), a steam generator (pg. 8 last line; steam supply device for supplying steam), and a processor (pg. 6 3rd par. Control/regulating unit) of a computing system (pg. 6 3rd par. Computer) controls delivery of steam from the steam generator to the inlet of the treatment chamber (pg. 6 4th par. Connected to device for charging interior with steam) based at least in part on the one or more generated temperature readings (pg. 6 5th par, 6th par. Temp. time pairs; variable temperature as function of time; pg. 7 5th, 6th par. Pasteurization vs. sterilization temperatures).
Thus since Howe teaches a controller for the purpose of determining and maintaining pre-determined temperatures by a first controller of temperature (col. 5 lines 43-44 ref. 10) and a second controller for controlling steam supply (col. 5 lines 65-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one control means, such as the controller of Howe, with that of the controller of Perren comprising a processor (pg. 6 3rd par. Control/regulating unit) of a computing system (pg. 6 3rd par. Computer) for its art recognized and intended purpose of Howe of control and regulating delivery of steam from the steam generator to the inlet of the treatment chamber which in particular facilitates the validation of various process for pasteurization and/or sterilization and better verifiability as taught by Perren (pg. 6 7th par.).
With respect to Independent claim 17, Howe teaches a method for phytosanitary treatment of produce (col. 3 line 61), the method comprising
injecting steam into a treatment chamber that contains produce that is to be treated (col. 5 lines 65-68)
monitoring a temperature within the treatment chamber using one or more temperature sensors (col. 5 lines 32-33) and
controlling, by a controller (col. 5 line 68), an amount of the steam injected to achieve a desired temperature within the treatment chamber (col. 5 lines 65-68; col. 6 lines 3-5, lines 22-26), wherein the controlling is based on the monitoring via the one or more temperature sensors (col. 6 lines 22-26), and wherein the desired temperature is high enough to kill an organism associated with the produce (col. 6 lines 25-27).
Howe is silent to a processor of a computing system.
Howe teaches steam treatment of foods and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived to look to the art of steam treatment of foods.
Perren teaches a treatment chamber (fig. 1 ref. 3; pg. 8 2nd to last par.), wherein the treatment chamber includes an inlet (fig. 1 schematic representation from steam supply ref. 5, 7; pg. 8 last line), a steam generator (pg. 8 last line; steam supply device for supplying steam), and a processor (pg. 6 3rd par. Control/regulating unit) of a computing system (pg. 6 3rd par. Computer) controls delivery of steam from the steam generator to the inlet of the treatment chamber (pg. 6 4th par. Connected to device for charging interior with steam) based at least in part on the one or more generated temperature readings (pg. 6 5th par, 6th par. Temp. time pairs; variable temperature as function of time; pg. 7 5th, 6th par. Pasteurization vs. sterilization temperatures).
Thus since Howe teaches a controller for the purpose of determining and maintaining pre-determined temperatures by a first controller of temperature (col. 5 lines 43-44 ref. 10) and a second controller for controlling steam supply (col. 5 lines 65-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one control means, such as the controller of Howe, with that of the controller of Perren comprising a processor (pg. 6 3rd par. Control/regulating unit) of a computing system (pg. 6 3rd par. Computer) for its art recognized and intended purpose of Howe of control and regulating delivery of steam from the steam generator to the inlet of the treatment chamber which in particular facilitates the validation of various process for pasteurization and/or sterilization and better verifiability as taught by Perren (pg. 6 7th par.).
With respect to claims 12-14, where Perren is relied upon with respect to the processor as above.
Claim 12, Howe teaches the controller determines that the one or more generated temperature readings satisfy a temperature threshold, and wherein the processor maintains the temperature threshold within the treatment chamber (col. 6 lines 22-25)
Claim 13, the controller controls a rate of temperature change based on the one or more generated temperature readings (col. 6 lines 22-25; predetermined time), and wherein the controller controls a steam injection such that the rate of temperature change does not exceed a temperature rate change threshold (col. 6 lines 21-24).
Though silent to a valve, Perren teaches such for a same purpose of controlling steam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a valve as taught with respect to the steam system of Howe thus achieving a same controlled steam by regulating a valve as taught by Perren (pg. 4 last par.)
Claim 14, further comprising an air circulation unit, wherein the controller controls the air circulation unit to circulate air within the treatment chamber (fig. 1 ref. 5).
Claim 15, though silent to a water source to cool the product, Howe does teach cooling the product using conventional methods (col. 6 lines 33-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further control a water source since Howe teaches cooling the food after treatment using conventional methods (col. 6 lines 33-35), in the instant case water.
Claim 16, since the purpose is maintaining a predetermined temperature and since Howe teaches the cavity including chamber jacket (col. 5 lines 55-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a double wall with insulation in between walls of the double wall for its art recognized purpose of further maintaining the cavity temperature and more specifically the advantage of maintaining steam quality as further taught by Howe (col. 5 lines 55-60).
With respect to claim 18, the steam is injected by a steam generator (col. 5 lines 65-68), and wherein the processor controls the steam generator to maintain the desired temperature for a predetermined duration of time (col. 6 lines 22-23), wherein the predetermined duration of time is based at least in part on a type of the produce (col. 3 lines 66-67).
Claim 20, though silent to a water source to cool the product, Howe does teach cooling the product using conventional methods (col. 6 lines 33-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further control a water source since Howe teaches cooling the food after treatment using conventional methods (col. 6 lines 33-35), in the instant case water.
Claims 2-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perren et al. (EP2604122; English translation provided) in view of Bhogal et al. (20160327279)
Perren teaches steam heating of food in a controlled and regulated manner by temperature measurements and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of steam controlled injection parameters as taught by Bhogal.
Bhogal teaches control of steam injection as determined by food parameters. The food parameter value is determined, including internal temperature, by the system, at a first time and compared to the estimated or target food parameter value for the foodstuffs stage, wherein the oven can be operated to rectify any differences in between the determined and target food parameter values, including automatically determine steam injection parameters (e.g., volume, rate, etc.) and control the oven to inject steam into the cooking chamber according to the determined steam injection parameters (par. 0143)
With respect to claim 2, though silent to a plurality of temperature sensors, Perren teaches temperature monitoring and temperature control for controlling steam injection and food heating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide more than one temperature sensor, i.e. a plurality as taught by Bhogal (par. 0058) thus achieving a same temperature monitoring of the closed cavity to monitor operation and food parameters and since the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, or down, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, such as in the instant case by providing a plurality of temperature sensors as opposed to one.
Claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide more than one temperature sensor, i.e. a plurality of ambient temperature sensors as taught by Bhogal (par. 0058) thus achieving a same temperature monitoring of the closed cavity to monitor operation and food parameters such that the processor compares the generated ambient temperature readings to an ambient temperature threshold as taught by Perren (pg. 4 par. 6) and since the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, or down, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, such as in the instant case by providing a plurality of temperature sensors as opposed to one for a same purpose.
Claim 4, Perren teaches the processor controls an amount of steam delivered by the steam generator (pg. 6 par. 3; temperature, pressure) based on the comparison of the generated ambient temperature readings to the ambient temperature threshold (pg. 6 par. 3; control and regulating; time temperature dependent).
Claim 5, wherein the processor controls the amount of steam delivered by the steam generator through control of a steam injection valve that receives the steam from the steam generator (pg. 3 last par. Valve).
Claim 6, since the controlling factor of the processor is predetermined temperature and since Perren teaches temperature sensing to maintain and control the temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine a highest temperature reading from the generated ambient temperature readings, and wherein the processor compares only the highest temperature reading to the ambient temperature threshold thus achieving the art recognized purpose of preventing temperature overshoot due to the highest temperature reading and achieving a same controlled and regulated temperature/steam treatment.
Claim 7, since the controlling factor of the processor is predetermined temperature and since Perren teaches temperature sensing to maintain and control the temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine a lowest temperature reading from the generated ambient temperature readings, and wherein the processor compares only the lowest temperature reading to the ambient temperature threshold thus ensuring a minimum temperature of the food is achieved for the art recognized purpose of achieving a same controlled and regulated temperature/steam treatment which ensures pasteurization or sterilization of the product as taught.
Claim 8, since the controlling factor of the processor is predetermined temperature and since Perren teaches temperature sensing to maintain and control the temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one time/temperature dependent controlling factor as taught by Perren with that of average temperature reading of the generated ambient temperature readings, and wherein the processor compares the average temperature reading to the ambient temperature threshold thus achieving a same art recognized purpose of preventing temperature overshoot due to the temperature readings and achieving a same controlled and regulated temperature/steam treatment.
Claim 9, Bhogal teaches the sensor are not limited and in addition to cavity parameter sensing, insertion temperature sensors such as probes may be used to record cooking parameters (par. 0058).
Perren teaches temperature monitoring and temperature control for controlling steam injection and food heating. Perren teaches the temperature sensor as close as possible, including in contact with the food (pg. 4 2nd to last par.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide more than one temperature sensor, such as in the instant case an internal temperature sensor as taught by Bhogal for its art recognized and intended purpose of comparison to the estimated or target food parameter value for the foodstuffs as reliable and as accurate as possible as taught by Perren (pg. 4 2nd to last par.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to generate an internal produce temperature reading, and wherein the processor compares the generated internal produce temperature reading to an internal produce temperature threshold for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of operation to rectify any differences in between the determined and target food parameter values, including automatically determine steam injection parameters (e.g., volume, rate, etc.) and control the oven to inject steam into the cooking chamber according to the determined steam injection parameters (par. 0143) due to temperature measuring as reliable and as accurate as possible as taught by Perren (pg. 4 2nd to last par.).
Claim 10, Perren teaches the processor controls an amount of steam delivered by the steam generator (pg. 6 par. 3; temperature, pressure) based on the comparison of the generated temperature readings to the temperature threshold (pg. 6 par. 3; control and regulating; time temperature dependent). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control a same steam delivery based on the comparison of the generated internal produce temperature reading to the internal produce temperature threshold for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of operation to rectify any differences in between the determined and target food parameter values, including automatically determine steam injection parameters (e.g., volume, rate, etc.) and control the oven to inject steam into the cooking chamber according to the determined steam injection parameters (par. 0143) and the internal temperature reading as taught by Bhogal (par. 0058).
Claim 11, since the food itself is the limiting and controlling factor to achieve the desired treatment outcome and since foods are of variable size and types. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide more than one internal temperature sensor, i.e. a plurality relative the combination of sensors as taught by Bhogal (par. 0058) thus achieving a same temperature monitoring of the food product to monitor operation and food parameters such that the processor compares the generated temperature readings to an temperature threshold as taught by Perren (pg. 4 par. 6) and since the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, or down, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, such as in the instant case by providing a plurality of temperature sensors as opposed to one for a same purpose of determining temperature of multiple foods to be treated at a singular time.
Claim 16, since the purpose is maintaining a predetermined temperature and since Bhogal teaches thermal insulation (par. 0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a double wall with insulation in between walls of the double wall as taught by Bhogal for its art recognized purpose of further maintaining the cavity temperature and more specifically the advantage that the outside of the walls are cool to the touch as taught by Bhogal (par. 0033).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe et al. (6800246) in view of Perren et al. (EP2604122; English translation provided) in view of Bhogal et al. (20160327279).
Howe and Perren are taken as above.
Howe and Perren teach steam heating of food in a controlled and regulated manner by temperature measurements and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of steam controlled injection parameters as taught by Bhogal.
Bhogal teaches control of steam injection as determined by food parameters. The food parameter value is determined, including internal temperature, by the system, at a first time and compared to the estimated or target food parameter value for the foodstuffs stage, wherein the oven can be operated to rectify any differences in between the determined and target food parameter values, including automatically determine steam injection parameters (e.g., volume, rate, etc.) and control the oven to inject steam into the cooking chamber according to the determined steam injection parameters (par. 0143)
Bhogal teaches the sensor are not limited and in addition to cavity parameter sensing as taught by Howe and Perren, insertion temperature sensors such as probes may be used to record cooking parameters (par. 0058).
Since both Howe and Perren teach temperature monitoring and temperature control for controlling steam injection and food heating and since Perren teaches the temperature sensor as close as possible, including in contact with the food (pg. 4 2nd to last par.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one temperature sensor, such as in the instant case an internal temperature sensor as taught by Bhogal for its art recognized and intended purpose of comparison to the estimated or target food parameter value for the foodstuffs as reliable and as accurate as possible as taught by Perren (pg. 4 2nd to last par.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to generate an internal produce temperature reading, and wherein the processor compares the generated internal produce temperature reading to an internal produce temperature threshold for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of operation to rectify any differences in between the determined and target food parameter values, including automatically determine steam injection parameters (e.g., volume, rate, etc.) and control the oven to inject steam into the cooking chamber according to the determined steam injection parameters (par. 0143) as reliable and as accurate as possible as taught by Perren (pg. 4 2nd to last par.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 2474649 standard treatment of produce using steam; 20140023757, 20060040029 directed to steam treating of foods; 20140199455 directed to core temperature sensing during steam heating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792