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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-10 and 18 in the reply filed on 21 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the requirement for restriction fails to identify a specific apparatus to practice the method claimed in the method of claims 1-10 and 18 and that a search directed to the method of invention I would cover the apparatus of invention II. This is not found persuasive because, as explained in the requirement for restriction mailed 22 June 2026, the method of invention I could be completed manually by a user. Additionally, as previously explained, invention I and II fall under different statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, they would inherently require different search strategies.
Regarding claim 18, the incorrect attribution of this claim to the apparatus of invention II has been acknowledged. As such, claim 18 has been included with the election of invention I and will be examined in this report.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “61”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “62” has been used to designate both a first heating zone and a second heating zone in Figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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 5-6 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the last heating zone" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köppel (EP 2833742 B1) in view of Braymand (US 4704958 A).
Regarding claim 1, Köppel teaches a method for regulating a transport velocity in a pasteurizer (changeable transport speed in pasteurizer, abstract), wherein the method comprises: regulating the transport velocity by changing the transport velocity (transport element transports containers at a changeable transport speed, abstract), making a corresponding first change of a first number of pasteurization zones of the pasteurizer by a second number, and making a corresponding second change of a third number of zones of the pasteurizer by the second number (Figure 2 at 100% nominal transport speed zones 1-3 form warm-up zones and zones 4-8 form pasteurization zones and Figure 3 at 50% nominal transport speed zones 1-7 are heating zones and zone 8 is the pasteurization zone). While Köppel does not explicitly teach that the second change is made to the cooling zone, Köppel teaches that the number of zones serving as cooling zones depends on the transport speed of the pasteurizer. Additionally, Braymand teaches changing modes to increase cooling zone of the pasteurizer (use entire region downstream of center partition for cooling and divide upstream portion into two equal length compartments for prepasteurization and pasteurization (column 5 lines 62-66).
Köppel and Braymand are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of variable pasteurization methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the change in transport velocity resulting in a change to pasteurization zone and an equal change in another zone of the system with the increase of cooling zones taught by Braymand because Köppel teaches enabling continuous/dynamic adjustment of the residence time of the containers within the pasteurizer without risking of improper pasteurization or over pasteurization (paragraph [0012]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the equal change in pasteurization and heating zones based on nominal transport speed taught by Köppel in accordance to the changes in the number of cooling zones as also taught by Köppel (outlined above) to achieve the desired pasteurization effect with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143 I (C)).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Köppel and Braymand teaches maintain a fourth number of heating zones of the pasteurizer (Figures 2-4 zones 1-3 are maintained as heating zones regardless of nominal transport speed, Köppel).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Köppel and Braymand teaches wherein changing the transport velocity comprises reducing the transport velocity (transport speed of containers through the pasteurizer is reduced, paragraph [0029], Köppel), wherein making the corresponding first change comprises reducing the first number of pasteurization zones of the pasteurizer by the second number, and wherein making the corresponding second change comprises increasing the third number of cooling zones of the pasteurizer by the second number (Figure 2 at 100% nominal transport speed heating occurs at zones 1-5 and pasteurization occurs in zones 6-8 and Figure 3 at 50% nominal transport speed zones 1-6 are heating zones and zones 7-8 is the pasteurization zone, Köppel, and see rejection of claim 1 for the applicability of changing cooling zones rather than heating zones).
Regrading claim 4, while the combination of Köppel and Braymand does not explicitly teach continuously lowering a first temperature in a last pasteurization zone, whereby the last pasteurization zone becomes a first cooling zone. Köppel and Braymand teaches adjusting the temperature of the pasteurization zone to create an additional temperature adjustment zone (Figure 3 temperature of zone 6 is lowered to 57.4°C from 61.4°C in Figure 1 to create an additional heating zone, Köppel). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could apply said temperature adjustment technique to the last pasteurization zone to create the first cooling zone to achieve the desired pasteurization effect with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143 I (C)).
Regrading claim 7, the combination of Köppel and Braymand teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein reducing the first number of pasteurization zones of the pasteurizer by the second number, and increasing the third number of cooling zones of the pasteurizer by the second number is carried out by means of regulating multiple regulatable valves (central programmable controller is connected to all valves and pumps to change operational modes, column 6 lines 6-11, Braymand).
Regarding claim 8, the combination Köppel and Braymand teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein changing the transport velocity comprises increasing the transport velocity (transport speed of the pasteurizer is increased, paragraph [0029], Köppel), wherein making the corresponding first change comprises increases the first number of pasteurizing zones of the pasteurizer by the second number and wherein making the corresponding second change comprises reducing the third number of cooling zones of the pasteurizer by the second number (Figure 4 heating decreases from zones 1-5 to zones 1-4 and pasteurization increases from zones 6-8 to 5-8, Köppel, and see rejection of claim 1 for the applicability of changing cooling zones rather than heating zones).
Regarding claim 9, while the combination of Köppel and Braymand does not explicitly teach wherein continuously increasing a first temperature in a first cooling zone, whereby the first cooling zone becomes a last pasteurization zone. Köppel and Braymand teaches adjusting the temperature of temperature zone to create an additional pasteurization zone (Figure 4 temperature of zone 5 is increased to 62.5°C from 61.4°C shown in Figure 2 to create additional pasteurization zone, Köppel). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could apply said temperature adjustment technique to the first cooling zone to create the last pasteurization zone to achieve the desired pasteurization effect with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143 I (C)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Köppel and Braymand teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the transport velocity is changed continuously (control of transport speed of the pasteurizer is possible continuously, paragraph [0013], Köppel).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Köppel teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the transport velocity is changed infinitely variably, or wherein the transport velocity is changed in 0.5%, 1%, or 1.5% increments (control of transport speed of the pasteurizer is possible continuously, paragraph [0013], Köppel).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, while the combination of Köppel and Braymand teaches changing the number of pasteurization and temperature adjustment zones based on transport speed and changing temperature of individual zones to increase or decrease number of pasteurization zone, the combination fails to teach changing the supply in the last pasteurization zone to the treatment medium from the cooling zone and the supply in the last heating zone to the treatment medium from the last pasteurization zone to accommodate this change.
Claim 6 would be allowable based on its dependence on claim 5.
The prior art as a whole fails to the teach the limitations of claim 5 within the claim environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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 Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
