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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1,2 and 21 have been amended.
Claims 1-10 and 21 are pending and examined as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgenson et al (US 2019/0128608) in view Ladd (US 6,339,727) in view of Nakamura (US 11,397,157) in view of Yoon et al (KR20170039551A).
With regards to claim 1, Jorgenson et al discloses a non-contact, closed-loop system for dehydrator control (a system and method for controlling a rotary vacuum drum drying system, paragraph 0010, for food or wine, paragraph 0003), that automatically adjusts parameters based on the monitoring of said parameters, paragraph 0026), the closed-loop system comprising: a dehydrator (See Fig. 1-2; a rotary vacuum drum drying system, paragraph 0012); a sensor configured measure a distribution of a product along a surface of the dehydrator (sensors 112 and 113 and 114 and 115 are configured to measure variable of the dehydrator such as rotational speed and vacuum pressure and moisture and mass respectively, paragraph 0017); a processor (processing device 502 is a microprocessor, paragraph 0031); and a memory, including instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor (machine readable storage medium 528 is used to store instructions thereon that the processing device 502 executes, paragraph 0033), cause the non-contact, closed-loop system to: measure the distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator (the system monitors the sensors to optimize the efficiency of the process, paragraph 0021), wherein the control parameter includes at least one of an additive concertation (the system may also include a moisture sensor 114 to monitor the moisture content of the removed filter agent 102).
Jorgenson et al does not disclose determine differences between the distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator and a predetermined distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator; and adjust a control parameter of the non-contact, closed-loop system in response to the determined differences to reduce the differences and control the distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator when the dehydrator operates.
Ladd teaches determine differences between the distribution of the product along the surface of the manufacturing line and a predetermined distribution of the product along the surface of the manufacturing line (a sensor measures product distribution which is attributed to a variation in moisture content of the product, col. 2 lines 28-31, and the differences in the distribution of the product as represented by the moisture content is compared to a predetermined sat of values to determine the distribution of the product as represented by the moisture content, col. 2 lines 30-44); and adjust a control parameter of the system in response to the determined differences to reduce the differences (based on the determined differences the system adjusted the state of a rotatable distributor to reduce the difference, col. 2 lines 30-44 and col. 4 lines 30-32) and control the distribution of the product along the surface of the manufacturing line when the manufacturing line operates (by controlling the rotatable distributor the system reduced the variation In product distribution as represented by the moisture content, col. 2 lines 30-44).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jorgenson et al and Ladd before him or her, to modify the processor of Jorgenson et al to include the difference determining step of Ladd because the combination improves the uniformity of drying by ensuring there are no lumps.
Jorgenson et al and Ladd does not teach determine, differences between the distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator and a predetermined distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator.
Nakamura teaches determine, differences between the distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator and a predetermined distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator (in the crumb detection device 100, a control device 50 including an arithmetic device, such as a personal computer, is provided and a sensor 40 is connected to the control device 50 wherein a signal detected by the sensor 40 is transmitted to the control device 50, and processed in the control device 50 and in a processing method, a simple image may be used for detection wherein signals inputted into the control device 50 and image data processed by the control device 50 may be recorded in a memory (not shown) incorporated in the control device 50, allowing data to be input and output, col 5, lines 4-15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jorgenson et al, Ladd and Nakamura before him or her, to modify the processor and sensors of Jorgenson et al and Ladd to include the crumb detection device of Nakamura because the combination allows for highly efficient detection of crumbs in a food processing apparatus.
Jorgenson et al, Ladd and Nakumara do not teach the use of a machine vision model.
Yoon et al teaches the use of a machine vision model (machine vision apparatus 20 which includes a camera having a guide providing apparatus 30 can automatically select the component that is determined to be the most suitable among the recommended components is, paragraph 0127, lines 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jorgenson et al, Ladd, Nakumara and Yoon et al before him or her, to modify the controller of Jorgenson et al, Ladd and Nakumara to include the machine vision model of Yoon et al because the combination allows for automated control of a product processing.
With regards to claim 2, Jorgenson et al discloses wherein the control parameter includes at least one of a drum speed (the electronic control and monitoring system has a rotational speed sensor 112 for measuring the speed of rotation of the vacuum drum cylinder 110, paragraph 0017, lines 4-5).
With regards to claim 3, Ladd teaches wherein the control parameter of the non-contact, closed-loop system is adjusted by: actuating an actuator configured to operate one or more components of the non-contact, closed-loop system including one or more components of at least one of a cooker, a masher, or the dehydrator (the necessary adjustments are read from the LUTs by the PLC controller 28, and are converted into actuator signals inputted to the actuator motors 141 through signal lines 30b and 30c, col 4, lines 43-45).
With regards to claim 4, Jorgenson et al discloses wherein the control parameter of the non-contact, closed-loop system is adjusted by: changing the speed of a variable speed motor that controls an angular velocity of the dehydrator (operating a drum dryer on a warm, arid day requires less vacuum pressure and less drying time, allowing the rotational speed of the vacuum drum dryer to be increased and the pressure created by the vacuum pump to be reduced, paragraph 0027, lines 5-8).
With regards to claim 5, Jorgenson et al discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor (instructions executed by processing device 502, Fig. 5), further cause the non-contact, closed-loop system to determine one or more parameters of the product based on the measured distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator, wherein the one or more parameters include a process yield (a mass sensor 115 to monitor the mass or rate of mass of the removed filter agent 102, paragraph 0017, lines 7-10) and wherein the non-contact, closed-loop system determines, based on the one or more parameters, differences between the distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator and the predetermined distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator (the quality of the product produced (again measured in the removed solid mass and the extracted liquid) when using the intelligent control system, as the parametric values of the outputs may be measured for consistency, paragraph 0027, lines 7-10).
With regards to claim 6, Nakamura teaches wherein the sensor includes an image sensor configured to capture an image of the product in the dehydrator (detection device 100 has a sensor 40 with a MOS sensor 42 for capturing an image of crumbs CW, Fig. 1), and
wherein when measuring the distribution of the product, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the non-contact, closed-loop system to access a captured image (the processed image may be displayed on the display device 60 and signals inputted into the control device 50 and image data processed by the control device 50 may be recorded in a memory (not shown) incorporated in the control device 50, allowing data to be input and output, col 5, lines 15-20).
With regards to claim 7, Nakamura teaches wherein when determining differences between the distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator and the predetermined distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the non-contact, closed-loop system to determine a metric indicating an adequacy of the distribution of the product in the dehydrator (the opening and closing operation of the flap 72 is controlled based on a signal from the sensor 40 controlled by the control device 50 and the quality of the bale formed by using the crumbs C is enhanced, col 6, lines 50-55).
With regards to claim 8, Nakamura teaches wherein when determining the metric, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the non- contact, closed-loop system to:
identify, (by a control device 50 including an arithmetic device, such as a personal computer, col 5, lines 4-7), one or more locations of the product in the dehydrator based on the image (sensor 40 preferably includes a MOS (Metal Oxide Semiconductor) sensor 42, such as a digital camera, for capturing a real image of a water-containing crumb CW, col 5, lines 19-24); and determine, (by a control device 50 including an arithmetic device, such as a personal computer, col 5, lines 4-7), the metric indicating an adequacy of a distribution of the product in the dehydrator based on the one or more identified locations of the product across the dehydrator (the opening and closing operation of the flap 72 is controlled based on a signal from the sensor 40 controlled by the control device 50 and the quality of the bale formed by using the crumbs C is enhanced, col 6, lines 50-55).
With regards to claim 9, Jorgenson et al discloses wherein the sensor includes at least one of a pressure sensor (vacuum pressure sensor 113 for measuring the vacuum pressure of the system, paragraph 0017, lines 4-5).
With regards to claim 10, Yoon et al teaches further comprising an analytics engine configured to perform the determinations, wherein the analytics engine includes basic logic (the component recommendation unit 330 determines at least one of the required resolutions, the exposure time, the frame rate, the number of inspections per second, the camera resolution, the frame rate recommended value, paragraph 0078, lines 1-3).
With regards to claim 21, Jorgenson et al discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the non-contact, closed-loop system to: one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) indicative of mash quality based on the measured distribution of the product along the surface of the dehydrator (moisture sensor 114 monitors the moisture content of the product, paragraph 0017, lines 7-9); and adaptively adjust the control parameter to optimize mash uniformity during operation based on the one or more KPIs (At block 430, the control system automatically adjusts the one or more of the plurality of parameters based on the monitoring of the parameters, paragraph 0026, lines 3-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Examiners response: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach “wherein the control parameter includes at least one of a scraping sequence, a mash ribbon speed, a feed rate, a scraper speed, a doctor blade age, a roller-to-drum gapping, a mash rate, a mash stickiness, a mash chunkiness, or an additive concentration”. Jorgenson et al discloses wherein the control parameter includes at least one of an additive concertation (the system may also include a moisture sensor 114 to monitor the moisture content of the removed filter agent 102).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached on 5712705095. 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
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761