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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1–14, in the reply filed on 30 March 2026 is acknowledged.
However, on review, the Office finds that the restricted groups do not have a proper search burden. Therefore, the restriction requirement is withdrawn, and all claims will be examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 3, 4, 6, and 12 are missing the required hatching for cross-sectional views. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2–5, 7–14, 20, 26, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a front end of the spiral stack” (ll. 4–5), but antecedent basis for this limitation is already provided for on line 3 of the same claim, and so the definite article should be employed.
The same applies for the last line of claim 3, line 3 of claim 5, and lines 4–5 of claim 20.
Claim 4 has a clear drafting error on line 2, and should be amended to recite “the first and second lateral baffles.”
Claim 7 recites “a height of the spiral stack” (l. 4) and “a footprint of the spiral stack” (ll. 4–5). However, antecedent basis for each of these limitations is already provided for in claim 1, and so the definite article should be employed.
The same applies on each of lines 4 and 5 of claim 14.
Claim 8 recites “a freezing process” on lines 5 and 6–7, but antecedent basis for the limitations is already provided on line 3 of the same claim, and so the definite article should be employed.
The same applies to each of lines 5 and 6–7 of claim 26.
Claim 37 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 19. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 9–13 are objected to due to dependency upon objected-to claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The cooling medium directing assembly in claims 19 and 37 (element 42 in the disclosure).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 19, 20, 25–27, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “the at least one return zone” (last line), but there is no antecedent basis for at least one return zone, as the claim only provides antecedent basis for a single “return zone.”
Claim 20 recites “the at least one treatment zone and the at least one return zone,” but similarly to the issue for claim 19 immediately above, there is no antecedent basis for “at least one treatment zone.”
Claim 37 recites “the at least one return zone” (ll. 13 and 17), but there is no antecedent basis for at least one return zone, as the claim only provides antecedent basis for a single “return zone.”
Claims 25–27 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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.
Every limitation of claim 25 seems present in claim 19 from which it depends.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick et al. (US Pub. 2012/0273165) in view of Crump, III et al. (US Pat. 5,515,775).
Claim 1: McCormick discloses a variable bi-directional airflow thermal processing system for a spiral conveyor (50) configured in at least one spiral stack enclosed within a thermal processing chamber (12), the variable bi-directional airflow thermal processing system comprising:
a thermal processing medium supply (20, 22; ¶ 20, “cryogenic gas”) for substantially horizontally supplying thermal processing medium to the thermal processing chamber (see the flow arrows in fig. 1) at a target temperature (¶ 52, “Flow of cryogen is continuously supplied to the freezer to maintain a desired set point temperature”) and velocity (a velocity is necessary and inherent with fan 22; velocity is also mentioned in ¶ 28, inter alia); and
a thermal processing medium directing assembly (30) configured to divide the spiral stack into at least one treatment zone (16) and at least one return zone (18) both extending along a height of the spiral stack and substantially confined within a footprint of the spiral stack (see 30 dividing the flow in fig. 1),
wherein the thermal processing medium supply substantially horizontally supplies thermal processing medium to the at least one treatment zone (see the flow arrows in 16 in fig. 1) and substantially horizontally withdraws thermal processing medium from the at least one return zone (see the flow arrows in 18 in fig. 1).
McCormick does not explicitly disclose its spiral stack having an inlet and an outlet, the spiral conveyor entering the thermal processing chamber via the chamber inlet and exiting the thermal processing chamber via the chamber outlet
However, McCormick’s spiral conveyor must have an inlet and an outlet to properly transport articles on its conveyor.
Crump discloses a similar apparatus with a spiral conveyor (19) having an inlet (17) and an outlet (18), and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct McCormick’s spiral conveyor to haven an inlet and an outlet like that shown in Crump so that articles can be input, treated, and removed from the apparatus.
Claim 3: McCormick discloses that the thermal processing medium directing assembly includes a first lateral vertical baffle (fig. 2, the left wall of 20 to 60) extending from the thermal processing medium supply toward a front end of the spiral stack (the side of 50 at 20 in fig. 2) and a second lateral vertical baffle (fig. 2, the right wall of 20 to 60) opposite the first lateral vertical baffle and extending from the thermal processing medium supply toward a front end of the spiral stack (from 20 to the side at 60 in fig. 2).
Claim 4: McCormick discloses that the first and lateral vertical baffles each include a first baffle portion (fig. 2, the portion of the wall proximate to 20) extending from the thermal processing medium supply substantially radially toward the spiral stack (i.e. it directs flow to the center of 50) and a second baffle portion (fig. 2, the portion of the wall between 20 and 60) extending from the first baffle portion along an exterior of the spiral stack, wherein the first baffle portions of the first and second lateral vertical baffles pressurize the thermal processing medium after exiting the thermal processing medium supply and before reaching the spiral stack (fig. 2, the portions of the wall proximate to 20 have a smaller area that pressurizes the medium).
Claim 5: McCormick discloses that the second baffle portions of the first and second lateral vertical baffles terminate before a front end of the spiral stack (evident from how the circumferential lateral wall portions in fig. 20 do not close, and permit flow, to 60) and define a circumferential vertical baffle gap configured to facilitate flow of thermal processing medium from the at least one treatment zone into the at least one return zone (i.e. at 60).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick in view of Crump as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohlsson et al. (US Pub. 2019/0285330).
McCormick discloses that the thermal processing medium supply includes a fan assembly (22), the evaporator assembly having a primary cooling portion positioned to cool thermal processing medium that is withdrawn from the at least one return zone by the fan assembly and a secondary cooling portion positioned to cool thermal processing medium that is supplied to the at least one treatment zone by the fan assembly.
McCormick does not disclose an evaporator assembly located between the spiral stack and the fan assembly, and instead has cryogen gas supplied by conduit 24 proximate at blower chamber 20.
However, Ohlsson discloses a similar apparatus that uses an evaporator assembly (144) located between a spiral stack (122) a fan assembly (148, see fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the cryogen supply system of McCormick with the evaporator system of Ohlsson as a less costly system at the cost of lower cooling output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7–14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 26 would inherit the potential allowability of claim 19 if amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action, and the rejection of claim 25 under § 112(d) was resolved.
Claim 27 would inherit the potential allowability of claim 19 if the rejection of claim 25 under § 112(d) was resolved.
Claims 37 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection, as well as the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, although the bare idea of duplicating a baffle to further vertically divide the spiral stack may be obvious, the actual implementation of that idea is not straightforward, since realistically such a baffle would have to extend in a way opposite that McCormick’s baffle does, which would also require an additional vertical intermediate return zone that McCormick does not invite, and such a design would significantly lengthen the flow path in McCormick in such a way that there is very reasonable concern that the path would have too great a loss of thermal effect of the thermal processing medium by the time it reached the final conveyor zone. Applicant’s disclosed invention avoids this issue with a particular arrangement of structures. Therefore, the claimed second horizontal baffle would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, McCormick’s return zone 60 does not include a portion of the spiral conveyor as claimed.
Claims 8–13 each depend from claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, McCormick does not disclose, or render obvious in view of other prior art, the claimed three treatment zones and two return zones confined within a footprint of the spiral stack.
Claims 19 and 37 are potentially allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claims 26 and 27 depend from claim 19.
Newman et al. (US Pub. 2013/0255295), Morey et al. (US Pub. 2018/0213801), Fammé et al. (US Pub. 2012/0260681), and Masuda et al. (JP 2019-60578 A, cited by the Office) are also cited as relevant prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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 (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights