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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following action is in response to the applicant’s Response to Election dated 6/11/2026, that was in response to the Requirement for Restriction dated 4/15/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 16-21, 23, 25, 27-28 and 31-32 are pending, claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 16-17 are elected and will be examined based on the merits, while claims 18-21, 23, 25, 27-28 and 31-32 are considered non-elected and are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, “the first mezzanine” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Although there is an antecedent basis, the claim is deemed to be clear regarding 112b is one of ordinary skill would understand there is a specific mezzanine with the function associated therewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morey et al [20180213963].
With respect to claim 1, Morey discloses: A thermal processing apparatus, comprising: a. a conveyor belt for supporting work products during thermal processing, the conveyor belt moving along a spiral path moving in a first direction arranged as a first tiered stack (26) and moving along a spiral path in a second direction (28) arranged as a second tiered stack; b. a circulation system (250) [paragraph 0041] to induce a gaseous first thermal processing medium (at 69, 70) from the tiers of the first and second spiral conveyor belt stacks and forces the thermal processing medium through a heat exchanger (240) and then back to the tiers of the spiral conveyor belt stacks [paragraph 0089]; c. the first tiered stack divided into a first processing zone (80) and a second processing zone (50) [paragraph 0063]; and d. a source of second thermal processing medium (108) directed at the first processing zone to thermally treat the work product in the first zone by enhanced heat transfer [see FIG 1, paragraph 0043, 0064].
Morey further discloses:
{cl. 2} The thermal processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising the first mezzanine (divided at 340) dividing the first tiered stack into a first processing zone and a second processing zone [see FIG 1, paragraph 0095].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morey et al [20180213963], further in view of Morey et al [2018213801].
With respect to claims 6 and 11, Morey [‘963] discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the additional process zones or use of the condensation heat transfer as further claimed.
Morey [‘801] makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 6} The thermal processing apparatus of claim 1: wherein the second tiered stack (60) is divided into a third processing zone (138) and a fourth processing zone (140); and a source of a third thermal processing medium directed at the work product of the fourth processing zone [paragraph 0076-0077].
{cl. 11} The thermal processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the source of the second thermal processing medium is directed at the first processing zone to heat the work product in the first zone by condensation heat transfer [see FIG 3, paragraph 0079].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Morey [‘963] with the teachings of Morey [‘801] because Morey [‘801] provides a condensation heat transfer known to eliminate pathogenic microorganisms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-9, 12, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The modifications required to arrive at the claimed invention requires impermissible hindsight reasoning as certain features are different in design.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCormick et al [20120273165] is considered pertinent art for similar teachings of a two-stack spiral conveyor [see FIG 1, abstract, paragraph 0035]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights