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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5 and 9 are allowable. The restriction requirement between groups I,II and III , as set forth in the Office action mailed on 7/1/2024 , has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 7/1/2024 is withdrawn. Claims 11-18, directed to a method controlling a closed-loop dehydrator and claim 20, directed to a computer-readable storage medium are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference characters 1808, 1809, 1810, and 1817 of Figure 18. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 18 features a reference character 1822 without a lead line as required by 37 CFR 1.84(q).
Figure 1 has a reference character 100 underlined without a proper justification under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) or (q). The underline should be removed, and in its place, a lead line with an arrow as per 37 CFR 1.84(r)(1) should be used.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In each of ¶¶76, 86, 92 (twice), and 94, "augur" should be "auger."
¶53 of the as-filed specification mentions that "the controller 200 may determine that the mash uniformity from the center of a roller to the edge of the roller is poor and is creating a lacy flake (FIG. 7)." However, the figures seem to suggest that this is shown in fig. 6, which mentions these aspects, while fig. 7 does not.
¶12 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "identify, by a machine vision model, one or more locations."
¶22 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "identifying, by a machine vision model, one or more locations."
¶50 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "the mash before being placed."
¶52 of the as-filed specification should be amended to replace "and or" with "and/or."
¶53 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "the controller 200[[,]] may cause the system."
In each of ¶¶70 and 73 of the as-filed specification, "mesh" should be "mash."
¶97 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "determinations [[form]] from."
¶101 of the as-filed specification describes dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) as non-volatile, but DRAM is volatile memory.
¶116 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "such as welding."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites "an additive flow rate", which is duplicated in claim 1.
Claim 5, line 8 should recite "the differences."
Claim 21 recites "Determine" should be “determine” on line 4.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites that "the analytics engine includes at least one of a basic logic or a machine learning model," but a machine learning model is already required by claim 1. It is unclear if there is an additional base logic or machine learning model or the one limited in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 6-8 are dependent from claim 1 which is a system claim and none of the limitations further limit any structure. Claims 16-18 are dependent from claim 11 which is a method claim and none of the limitations further limit any method step. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 1-5,9,11-15,20 and 21 are allowable because the prior art does not disclose or teach wherein the sensor includes an image sensor configured to capture an image of the product in the dehydrator, a memory, including instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the non-contact, closed-loop system to determine, by a machine learning model and based on the one or more identified locations of the product, a metric indicating an adequacy of the distribution of the product across the surface of the dehydrator.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached at 5712725567. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights