/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 DETAILED ACTION/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 11/20/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 14, 17, 19 have been amended.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 08/20/2025.
With respect to Specification Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the Specification Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 08/20/2025.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 08/20/2025.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 08/20/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Arguments: (Regarding independent claim 1 – see details on pages 10-16 in the Remarks dated 11/20/2025)
Applicant argued that “a person skilled in the related art would not be encouraged to replace the lateral air cooling ducts 32 of the first tubular element 11 in Fig. 7 with the cold water distribution tube 56 that extends inside and along the third tubular element 4 in Fig. 17” because “RUOZI proposes different embodiments for the cooling systems of the first tubular element 11 and the third tubular element 4; but does not suggest or encourage the person skilled in the art to combine the features of a cooling system of one of these two tubular elements with those of the cooling system of the other of these two tubular elements. Moreover, one skilled in the related art would not replace the ventilation cooling system of the first tubular element 11 by integrating a cold water distribution plenum 56 into the first tubular element 11 … The technical problem considered in the first tubular element 11, and solved by the lateral air cooling ducts 32, is how to cool the packages while they are being heated by microwaves in order to be pasteurized/sterilized, so that, as mentioned above, to prevent the risk of rupture/explosion of their sealed films.” – see details on pages 10-13 of the Remarks dated 11/20/2025.
Additionally, Applicant argued that “Applicant respectfully submits that one skilled in the related art would not be encouraged to combine the teachings of RUOZI and WU” because “the solution of Wu does not disclose: - a microwave cavity in which the air distribution pipe is integrated; - that the shrimp slice pancake are exposed to microwaves; and - that the shrimp slice pancake are contained in packages hermetically closed by sealed films. Additionally, since the solution of WU is not a microwave plant. Moreover and in WU, the technical problem is how to cool shrimp slice pancakes after they have been backing. However, this technical problem is different from the technical problem of cooling a foodstuff contained in package hermetically closed by a sealed film while it is exposed to microwaves in a microwave cavity.” – see details on pages 13-14 of the Remarks dated 11/20/2025.
Furthermore, Applicant argued that “a person skilled in the related art won’t be encouraged by ALLEN to consider such a polyethylene material, since ALLEN is not concerned by microwave issues.” and that “one skilled in the related art would not be encouraged to combine the teachings of RUOZI and ALLEN” – see details on pages 14-16 of the Remarks dated 11/20/2025.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 teaches substantially all limitations recited in the independent claim 1, including a pasteurization facility for microwave pasteurization of food products contained in packages hermetically closed by a sealed film, the pasteurization facility comprising at least: a microwave cavity; a conveyor line passing through the microwave cavity for conveying the packages; at least one microwave generator coupled to at least one microwave guide opening into the microwave cavity, to generate and propagate a microwave radiation inside the microwave cavity and heat the food products on the conveyor line; a ventilation cooling system designed to inject air inside the microwave cavity. However, Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 does not explicitly teach the ventilation cooling system comprises at least one air distribution plenum formed of a tubular body which extends continuously inside the microwave cavity, along and above the conveyor line, the at least one air distribution plenum being made of a material transparent to the microwave radiation and being provided with air distribution orifices distributed along and opposite the conveyor line. Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 teaches the ventilation cooling system comprises at least one distribution plenum formed of a tubular body which extends continuously inside the microwave cavity, along and above the conveyor line, the at least one distribution plenum being provided with distribution orifices distributed along and opposite the conveyor line. It is noted that Examiner only substitutes the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 cooling ducts 32 with the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 distribution tube 56. Examiner did not substitute the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 cooling air inside of the cooling ducts 32 with the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 cooling water inside the distribution tube 56. To be more specific, only the structure of the cooling system of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 is substituted with the structure of the cooling system of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17, the fluid inside the cooling system of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 is not substituted with the fluid inside the cooling system of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17. Additionally, it is noted that the reference Wu is only applied to show that the air can be distributed by longitudinal tube with orifices. Other limitations such as a microwave cavity in which the air distribution pipe is integrated is already disclosed/suggested by the primary reference Wu. It is further noted that since the structure of the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 distribution tube 56 with orifices (see Ruozi Fig.17) and the Wu air pipe 1 having a plurality of cooling pipe 11 and orifices 12 (see Wu Figs.1-2) are similar; therefore, the reference Wu is only applied to show that the air can be distributed by longitudinal tube with orifices. Furthermore, the reference Allen is only applied to teach that the air distribution plenum being made of a material transparent to the microwave radiation. Other limitations required by independent claim 1, such as a microwave cavity in which the air distribution pipe is integrated is already disclosed/suggested by the reference Ruozi. To be more specific:
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “a person skilled in the related art would not be encouraged to replace the lateral air cooling ducts 32 of the first tubular element 11 in Fig. 7 with the cold water distribution tube 56 that extends inside and along the third tubular element 4 in Fig. 17”, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Examiner did not substitute the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 cooling air inside of the cooling ducts 32 with the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 cooling water inside the distribution tube 56; to be more specific, Examiner would like to copy the whole rationale for combination of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 with Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 below:
“It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Ruozi Fig.7 cooling system (see the Ruozi Fig.7 cooling ducts 32 in Ruozi Figs.7-8) with the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling system (see the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 with distribution orifices in Ruozi Fig.17), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing cooling fluid for the food product being transported on the conveyor belt. MPEP 2143 I (B).”
Therefore, Examiner only substitutes the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 cooling ducts 32 with the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 distribution tube 56 since the primary reference Ruozi proposes different embodiments for the cooling systems for Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 and Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17. To be more specific, only the structure of the cooling system of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 is substituted with the structure of the cooling system of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17, the fluid inside the cooling system of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 is not substituted with the fluid inside the cooling system of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17. The cooling air can be supplied to the microwave cavity equally well with both cooling ducts 32 and distribution tube 56. Therefore, the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing cooling fluid for the food product being transported on the conveyor belt. MPEP 2143 I (B).
It is further noted that since the structure of the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 distribution tube 56 with orifices (see Ruozi Fig.17) and the Wu air pipe 1 having a plurality of cooling pipe 11 and orifices 12 (see Wu Figs.1-2) are similar; therefore, the reference Wu is only applied to show that the air can be distributed by longitudinal tube with orifices.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “a person skilled in the related art won’t be encouraged by ALLEN to consider such a polyethylene material, since ALLEN is not concerned by microwave issues.”, Examiner respectfully disagrees because as explained previously, in response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instant case, Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 and Wu teaches substantially all limitations recited in the independent claim 1, but does not teach the air distribution plenum being made of a material transparent to the microwave radiation. The reference Allen is only applied to teach that the air distribution plenum being made of a material transparent to the microwave radiation. Other limitations required by independent claim 1, such as a microwave cavity in which the air distribution pipe is integrated is already disclosed/suggested by Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 and Wu. Therefore, in combination, Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17, Wu and Allen properly teaches all limitations recited in the independent claim 1.
Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, “one skilled in the related art would not be encouraged to combine the teachings of RUOZI and ALLEN”, the Examiner insist the rationale of the combination of Allen’s teaching with Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 and Wu is proper because in the instant case, the purpose of combining Allen’s teaching with Ruozi Embodiment Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 and Wu is not defeated, for, at least, the benefit of avoiding interfere in the microwave heating process so that the microwave radiation can be directed from the microwave wave guides into the microwave cavity to interact with food packages food heat them properly; thus, providing effective and uniform heating in the microwave cavity; moreover, polyethylene material, which is transparent to microwaves would allow for unobstructed airflow while minimizing any disruption to the microwave field. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”. As such, Applicant’s argument that “one skilled in the related art would not be encouraged to combine the teachings of RUOZI and ALLEN”, is moot.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
“ventilation unit connected to the at least one air distribution plenum and designed to suck in air outside the microwave cavity in order to inject the air into the at least one air distribution plenum” in claim 6 (lines 2-5) & in claim 19 (lines 2-5) and “ventilation unit” in claim 7 (line 2). These limitations use generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “designed to suck in air outside the microwave cavity in order to inject the air into the at least one air distribution plenum” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “ventilation unit” will be interpreted as “blower, fan or pump” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 6 lines 17-20: “the ventilation cooling system comprises at least one ventilation unit, such as blower or fan or pump, connected to the at least one air distribution plenum and designed to suck in air outside the microwave cavity in order to inject it into the at least one air distribution plenum.”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 1-6, 8, 10, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruozi Fig.7 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited) in view of Ruozi Fig.17 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited), Wu (CN 216448433 U, previously cited) and further in view of Allen (U.S. Patent No. 6,534,306 B1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Ruozi Fig.7 discloses a pasteurization facility (as shown in Ruozi Fig.7) for microwave pasteurization of food products contained in packages hermetically closed by a sealed film (sealed containers 49, Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67; Ruozi Abstract teaches solid or liquid food products are contained in the sealed containers) (see containers 49 in Ruozi Figs.9-10; it is noted that Figs.9-10 are for illustration purposes only) (Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67 to Col.6 lines 1-3 discloses “The containers 49 containing the products to be pasteurized or sterilised are conveyed through the said first tubular element 11 by means of a conveyor device 31, for example a conveyor belt, made in microwave transparent material to allow the products to be radiated from below, through the base of the containers 49.”), the pasteurization facility (as shown in Ruozi Fig.7) comprising at least:
a microwave cavity (cavity of the tubular element 11, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) (it is noted that cavity of the tubular element 11 is microwave cavity because there are microwave generators 29 having wave guides 30 provided along the tubular element 11 in order to provide microwave radiation into the cavity of the tubular element 11, Ruozi Fig.7 & Col.5 lines 57-61);
a conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7) passing through the microwave cavity (cavity of the tubular element 11, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) for conveying the packages (containers 49, Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67) (or see containers 49 in Ruozi Figs.9-10; it is noted that Figs.9-10 are for illustration purposes only to show that the containers 49 is conveyed on the conveyor belt) (Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67 to Col.6 lines 1-3 discloses “The containers 49 containing the products to be pasteurized or sterilised are conveyed through the said first tubular element 11 by means of a conveyor device 31, for example a conveyor belt, made in microwave transparent material to allow the products to be radiated from below, through the base of the containers 49.”);
at least one microwave generator (microwave generators 29, Ruozi Fig.7) coupled to at least one microwave guide (wave guides 30, Ruozi Fig.7) opening into the microwave cavity (cavity of the tubular element 11, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below), to generate and propagate a microwave radiation (microwave radiation is generated by microwave generators 29) inside the microwave cavity (cavity of the tubular element 11, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) and heat the food products (food products contained in the containers 49, Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67) on the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7) (Ruozi Col.5 lines 57-67 to Col.6 lines 1-3 discloses “Along the said first tubular element 11, a number of microwave generators 29, for example magnetron, are arranged in staggered longitudinal or circumferential rows, having wave guides 30 that, preferably, have a rectangular section. If rectangular section wave guides 30 are used, the wave guides of the microwave generators 29 of the same row are preferably alternatively rotated 90° with respect to each other. The containers 49 containing the products to be pasteurized or sterilised are conveyed through the said first tubular element 11 by means of a conveyor device 31, for example a conveyor belt, made in microwave transparent material to allow the products to be radiated from below, through the base of the containers 49.”; therefore, Ruozi discloses microwave generators 29 having wave guides 30 opening into the microwave cavity to generate and propagate a microwave radiation inside the tubular element 11 and heat the food products contained in the containers 49 on the conveyor belt 31);
a ventilation cooling system (ventilation cooling system comprises air cooling ducts 32, Ruozi Figs.7-8) designed to inject air inside the microwave cavity (cavity of the tubular element 11, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) (Ruozi Col.6 lines 3-6 discloses: “The tubular element 11 also has a pair of air cooling ducts 32, which communicate with the inside of the tubular sections 11a, each duct 32 having a heat exchanger 33 and a fan 34.”; it is noted that three tubular sections 11a form the tubular element 11, as shown in Ruozi Figs.2, 7-8)
PNG
media_image1.png
572
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ruozi Fig.7 does not disclose
wherein the ventilation cooling system comprises at least one air distribution plenum formed of a tubular body which extends continuously inside the microwave cavity, along and above the conveyor line, the at least one air distribution plenum being made of a material transparent to the microwave radiation and being provided with air distribution orifices distributed along and opposite the conveyor line.
Ruozi Fig.17 teaches:
wherein the ventilation cooling system (ventilation cooling system comprises cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17) comprises at least one distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17) (it is noted that the Instant Application defines plenum as a long hollow tube 6 with distribution orifices 60, as shown in Fig.3 of the Drawings of the Instant Application; therefore, the structure of the prior art Ruozi cooling distribution tube 56 and the structure of the Instant Application distribution plenum are similar) formed of a tubular body (it is known that the cooling distribution tube 56 formed of a tubular body because the definition of “tube” is “a long, hollow cylinder of metal, plastic, glass, etc. for holding or transporting something, chiefly liquids or gases” – according to Oxford Languages Dictionary) which extends continuously inside the microwave cavity (cavity of the tubular element 4, Ruozi annotated Fig.17 below), along and above the conveyor line (conveyor belt 48, Ruozi Fig.17) (Ruozi Fig.17 shows the cooling distribution tube 56 extends continuously inside the cavity of the tubular element 4, along and above the conveyor belt 48), the at least one distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17) being provided with distribution orifices (distribution orifices of the distribution tube 56, Ruozi annotated Fig.17 below) distributed along and opposite the conveyor line (conveyor belt 48, Ruozi Fig.17) (Ruozi Fig.17 shows the cooling distribution tube 56 being provided with the distribution orifices distributed along and opposite the conveyor belt 48).
PNG
media_image2.png
585
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Ruozi Fig.7 cooling system (see the Ruozi Fig.7 cooling ducts 32 in Ruozi Figs.7-8) with the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling system (see the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 with distribution orifices in Ruozi Fig.17), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing cooling fluid for the food product being transported on the conveyor belt. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17 teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
the at least one distribution plenum is the air distribution plenum, and the at least one air distribution plenum being made of a material transparent to the microwave radiation
Wu teaches air distribution plenum (Wu Figs.1-2):
the at least one distribution plenum (air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11, Wu Figs.1-2) is the air distribution plenum (air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11 configured to distribute cool air; therefore, the air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11 is the air distribution plenum), and the at least one air distribution plenum (air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11, Wu Figs.1-2) being provided with air distribution orifices (air outlet holes 12, Wu Fig.2) distributed along and opposite the conveyor line (conveyor belt 5, Wu Fig.1) (specifically, Wu Translated Document on page 4, paragraph 7 teaches: “Referring to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, shrimp sheet pancake transmission line air cooling device comprises an air outlet pipe 1, the ground is vertically set up with two parallel brackets 51, a conveyor belt 5 is installed between the two brackets 51, the biscuit after heating and baking is transported on the conveyor belt 5, the air outlet pipe 1 set up above the conveyor belt 5, the air outlet pipe 1 is cylindrical long pipe, one side of the air outlet pipe 1 towards the conveying belt surface is provided with a plurality of air outlet holes 12, a plurality of air outlet holes 12 are arranged along the conveying direction of the conveying belt 5. when it is necessary to cool the battercake, the cold air from the air outlet 1, air outlet hole 12 from the air outlet 1 of the battercake blowing cooling, a plurality of air outlet hole 12 so that the battercake windward degree is uniform, the cooling effect is better.”)
Since the prior art Ruozi embodiment Fig.17 teaches that the cooling fluid can be refrigerated water or refrigerated air, specifically Ruozi Col.8 lines 30-33 teaches: “The cooling is carried out with refrigerated water (FIG. 17), sprinkled on the containers 49 by a distribution pipe 56, or with refrigerated air (FIG. 18)”, but Ruozi is not specific enough about the air is distributed by the distribution tube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fluid inside of the Ruozi Fig.17 distribution tube 56 (i.e., refrigerated water) with the fluid inside of the Wu pipe 1 (i.e., cooling air), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing cooling fluid for the sealed food packages being transported on the conveyor belt. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Examiner’s Note: since the structure of the Ruozi Embodiment Fig.17 distribution tube 56 with orifices (see Ruozi Fig.17) and the Wu air pipe 1 having a plurality of cooling pipe 11 and orifices 12 (see Wu Figs.1-2) are similar; therefore, the reference Wu is only applied to show that the air can be distributed by longitudinal tube with orifices.
Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17 and Wu teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
the at least one air distribution plenum being made of a material transparent to the microwave radiation
Allen teaches air distribution plenum (Allen Col.4 lines 22-24):
the at least one air distribution plenum being made of a material transparent to the microwave radiation (Allen Col.4 lines 22-24 teaches: “These lateral plenums 28 are made of eight-inch polyethylene pipe that is perforated to allow for the flow of air therethrough”; therefore, Allen teaches the air plenum is made of polyethylene pipe; it is well known that polyethylene is transparent to microwave radiation, as evidenced by prior art Schiffmann or Pralus [see the Conclusion section of this Office Action regarding the pertinent prior arts])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17 and Wu, by making the air plenum to be made of polyethylene material, as taught by Allen, in order to avoid interfere in the microwave heating process so that the microwave radiation can be directed from the microwave wave guides into the microwave cavity to interact with food packages food heat them properly; thus, providing effective and uniform heating in the microwave cavity. Moreover, polyethylene material, which is transparent to microwaves would allow for unobstructed airflow while minimizing any disruption to the microwave field.
Regarding claim 2, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
wherein the at least one microwave generator (microwave generators 29, Ruozi Fig.7) comprises one or several microwave generator(s) (it is noted that the limitation “one or several” is in alternative form, therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination; in this case, Ruozi Fig.7 shows several microwave generators 29) coupled to several microwave guides (several wave guides 30, Ruozi Fig.7) (Ruozi Fig.7 shows several microwave generators 29 coupled to several wave guides 30) opening into the microwave cavity (cavity of the tubular element 11, see Ruozi annotated Fig.7 in the rejection of claim 1 above) and distributed along the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7), and the at least one air distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17; it is noted that in combination, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 is incorporated in the Ruozi Fig.7 to be located above the conveyor line and configured to distribute air) extends at least between two microwave guides (at least two wave guides 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) among the several microwave guides (several wave guides 30, Ruozi Fig.7) (Ruozi Fig.17 shows that the cooling distribution tube 56 extends approximately from the entrance to the exit of the tubular element 4; therefore, in combination, by adding the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 to the Ruozi Fig.7, the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 would extend approximately from the entrance to the exit of the tubular element 11 of the Ruozi Fig.7; therefore, in combination, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the cooling distribution tube 56 extends at least between two microwave wave guides 30 among the several microwave wave guides 30).
PNG
media_image3.png
549
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
wherein at least one microwave guide (wave guide 30, Ruozi Fig.7) comprises at least one upper microwave guide (upper wave guides 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below), opening above and opposite the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7), the at least one air distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17; it is noted that in combination, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 is incorporated in the Ruozi Fig.7 to be above the conveyor belt and configured to distribute air) being interposed between the at least one upper microwave guide (upper wave guides 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) and the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7) (Ruozi Fig.17 shows that the cooling distribution tube 56 being interposed between the upper wall of the tubular element 4 and the conveyor belt 48; therefore, in combination, by adding the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 to the Ruozi Fig.7, the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 would be interposed between the upper wave guide 30 and the conveyor belt 31 because the upper wave guide 30 is located at the top of the upper wall of the tubular element 11; therefore, in combination, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the cooling distribution tube 56 being interposed between the upper wave guides 30 and the conveyor belt 31).
PNG
media_image4.png
554
765
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 3, and also teaches
wherein the at least one upper microwave guide (upper wave guides 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) comprises at least two upper microwave guides (at least two upper wave guides 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below), and the at least one air distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17; it is noted that in combination, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 is incorporated in the Ruozi Fig.7 to be located above the conveyor belt and configured to distribute air) extends at least between the at least two upper microwave guides (two upper wave guides 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) (Ruozi Fig.17 shows that the cooling distribution tube 56 extends approximately from the entrance to the exit of the tubular element 4; therefore, in combination, by adding the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 to the Ruozi Fig.7, the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 would extend approximately from the entrance to the exit of the tubular element 11; therefore, in combination, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the cooling distribution tube 56 extends at least between two upper microwave wave guides 30).
PNG
media_image5.png
554
765
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
wherein the at least one microwave guide (wave guides 30, Ruozi Fig.7) comprises at least one lower microwave guide (lower wave guide 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below), opening below and opposite the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7), the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7) then being interposed between the at least one air distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17; it is noted that in combination, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 is incorporated in the Ruozi Fig.7 to be located above the conveyor belt and configured to distribute air) and the at least one lower microwave guide (lower wave guide 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) (Ruozi Fig.17 shows that the conveyor belt 48 being interposed between the cooling distribution tube 56 and the lower wall of the tubular element 4; therefore, in combination, by adding the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 to the Ruozi Fig.7, the conveyor belt 31 of Ruozi Fig.7 would be interposed between the cooling distribution tube 56 and the lower wave guide 30 because the lower wave guide 30 is located below the lower wall of the tubular element 11; therefore, in combination, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the conveyor belt 31 being interposed between the cooling distribution tube 56 and the lower wave guide 30).
PNG
media_image6.png
539
765
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Ruozi does not explicitly teaches
wherein the ventilation cooling system comprises at least one ventilation unit connected to the at least one air distribution plenum and designed to suck in air outside the microwave cavity in order to inject the air into the at least one air distribution plenum.
Wu teaches (Wu Figs.1-2):
wherein the ventilation cooling system (ventilation cooling system comprises air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11 and fan 2, Wu Figs.1-2) comprises at least one ventilation unit (fan 2, Wu Fig.1) connected to the at least one air distribution plenum (air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11, Wu Figs.1-2) and designed to suck in air outside the microwave cavity in order to inject the air into the at least one air distribution plenum (air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11, Wu Figs.1-2) (Wu Translated Document on page 4 paragraph 10 teaches “fan 2 continuously blowing air to the air outlet pipe 1”; it is well known that the principle of working fan is fan gets its air supply from the surrounding environment; specifically, the fan blades rotate, creating a low-pressure area behind them; this draws air in from all directions towards the back of the fan, and then pushes it forward; therefore, since Wu Translated Document on page 4 paragraph 10 teaches “fan 2 continuously blowing air to the air outlet pipe 1”; in combination, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the fan is designed to suck in air outside the microwave cavity in order to inject it into the at least one air distribution plenum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, by adding the fan designed to suck in air outside in order to inject it into the air distribution plenum, as taught by Wu, in order to improve ventilation and air quality because the fan suck in air outside and inject it into the air distribution plenum would help dissipate heat from the microwave cavity, preventing overheating and extending the pasteurization facility lifespan. Additionally, airflow through the microwave cavity would help carry away steam, preventing condensation buildup that can lead to moisture damage and potential electrical issues.
Regarding claim 8, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
wherein the at least one air distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17; it is noted that in combination, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 is incorporated in the Ruozi Fig.7 and configured to distribute air) has a tubular section (cooling distribution tube 56 has tubular section along the tube because the definition of “tube” is “a long, hollow cylinder of metal, plastic, glass, etc. for holding or transporting something, chiefly liquids or gases” – according to Oxford Languages Dictionary) in which the air distribution orifices (distribution orifices of the distribution tube 56, Ruozi annotated Fig.17 below) are provided.
PNG
media_image2.png
585
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches the at least one air distribution plenum comprises one or several air distribution plenum(s) (it is noted that the limitation “one or several” is in alternative form, therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination; in this case, in combination, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches one cooling distribution tube 56 as shown in Ruozi Fig.17, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above)
However, Ruozi does not explicitly teaches the distribution plenum extending over at least 90% of a length of the microwave cavity measured along the conveyor line as required by the claim.
Regarding the limitation that the air distribution plenum extending over at least 90% of a length of the microwave cavity measured along the conveyor line, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Fig.17 of Ruozi where the reference Ruozi teaches certain length of the distribution tube 56), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Ruozi teaches the length of the distribution tube 56, and having a specific length of the distribution tube is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the length of the distribution tube is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the length of the distribution tube would impact the number of the cooling orifices provided along the horizontal direction of the distribution tube, thus, it would impact the cooling efficiency inside of the microwave cavity. An extended air distribution tube along the microwave cavity ensures a more even distribution of the cooling air across the entire length of the microwave cavity; thus, improving cooling inside of the microwave cavity. Therefore, the length of the distribution tube is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ruozi length of the distribution tube by making the distribution tube extending over at least 90% of a length of the microwave cavity measured along the conveyor line as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 16, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and Allen also teaches:
wherein the material transparent to the microwave radiation is selected from among polypropylene, polyethylene and polytetrafluoroethylene (Allen teaches the material transparent to the microwave radiation is made from polyethylene, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches a pasteurization method (Ruozi Col.5 lines 51-67 to Col.6 lines 1-30 discloses the microwave pasteurization method) implemented within a pasteurization facility (pasteurization facility as shown in Ruozi Fig.7) according to claim 1 for microwave pasteurization of food products contained in packages hermetically closed by the sealed film (sealed containers 49, Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67; Ruozi Abstract teaches solid or liquid food products are contained in the sealed containers) (see containers 49 in Ruozi Figs.9-10; it is noted that Figs.9-10 are for illustration purposes only) (Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67 to Col.6 lines 1-3 discloses “The containers 49 containing the products to be pasteurized or sterilised are conveyed through the said first tubular element 11 by means of a conveyor device 31, for example a conveyor belt, made in microwave transparent material to allow the products to be radiated from below, through the base of the containers 49.”), the pasteurization method comprising at least:
a conveying step during which the packages (sealed containers 49, Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67) are conveyed on the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7) (Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67 to Col.6 lines 1-3 discloses “The containers 49 containing the products to be pasteurized or sterilised are conveyed through the said first tubular element 11 by means of a conveyor device 31, for example a conveyor belt, made in microwave transparent material to allow the products to be radiated from below, through the base of the containers 49.”),
a heating step (heating step is performed by microwave generators 29, Ruozi Fig.7), taking place simultaneously in the conveying step (sealed containers 49 are conveyed in the conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7), during which the at least one microwave generator (microwave generators 29, Ruozi Fig.7) generates and propagates via the at least one microwave guide (wave guides 30, Ruozi Fig.7) a microwave radiation (microwave radiation is generated by microwave generators 29) for heating the food products (food products contained in sealed containers 49, Ruozi Abstract discloses solid or liquid food products are contained in the sealed containers) on the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7) (Ruozi Col.5 lines 51-56 discloses: “a first tubular element 11 of the plant 10a for pasteurizing or sterilising solid, soft or semiliquid products, in which the first phase of the of the pasteurization or sterilisation treatment is carried out, consisting of the rapid heating of the products, at progressively increasing pressure in function of the temperature.”, and Ruozi Col.5 lines 65-67 to Col.6 lines 1-3 discloses: “The containers 49 containing the products to be pasteurized or sterilised are conveyed through the said first tubular element 11 by means of a conveyor device 31, for example a conveyor belt, made in microwave transparent material to allow the products to be radiated from below, through the base of the containers 49.”; therefore, the heating step and the conveying step are taking place simultaneously in the first tubular element 11),
a ventilation cooling step (Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the ventilation cooling system by air distribution plenum, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above), taking place simultaneously with the conveying step (sealed containers 49 are conveyed in the conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7) and with the heating step (heating step is performed by microwave generators 29, Ruozi Fig.7) (Ruozi Col.5 lines 51-67 to Col.6 lines 1-30 describes in details the ventilation cooling system is incorporated in the tubular element 11 in order to provide cooling for packages while the packages being heated by microwave generators 29 and being conveyed on the conveyor belt 31; therefore, Ruozi discloses the ventilation cooling step taking place simultaneously with the conveying step and with the heating step), during which air is injected along and above the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7) throughout the air distribution orifices (distribution orifices, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) provided in the at least one air distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) (Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches air is injected along and above the conveyor belt 31 throughout the distribution orifices provided in the cooling distribution tube 56, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 4, and also teaches
wherein the at least one microwave guide (wave guides 30, Ruozi Fig.7) comprises at least one lower microwave guide (lower wave guide 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below), opening below and opposite the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7), the conveyor line (conveyor belt 31, Ruozi Fig.7) then being interposed between the at least one air distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17; it is noted that in combination, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 is incorporated in the Ruozi Fig.7 to be located above the conveyor belt and configured to distribute air) and the at least one lower microwave guide (lower wave guide 30, Ruozi annotated Fig.7 below) (Ruozi Fig.17 shows that the conveyor belt 48 being interposed between the cooling distribution tube 56 and the lower wall of the tubular element 4; therefore, in combination, by adding the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 to the Ruozi Fig.7, the conveyor belt 31 of Ruozi Fig.7 would be interposed between the cooling distribution tube 56 and the lower wave guide 30 because the lower wave guide 30 is located below the lower wall of the tubular element 11; therefore, in combination, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the conveyor belt 31 being interposed between the cooling distribution tube 56 and the lower wave guide 30).
PNG
media_image6.png
539
765
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 18, Ruozi does not explicitly teaches
wherein the ventilation cooling system comprises at least one ventilation unit connected to the at least one air distribution plenum and designed to suck in air outside the microwave cavity in order to inject the air into the at least one air distribution plenum.
Wu teaches (Wu Figs.1-2):
wherein the ventilation cooling system (ventilation cooling system comprises air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11 and fan 2, Wu Figs.1-2) comprises at least one ventilation unit (fan 2, Wu Fig.1) connected to the at least one air distribution plenum (air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11, Wu Figs.1-2) and designed to suck in air outside the microwave cavity in order to inject the air into the at least one air distribution plenum (air pipe 1 comprises a plurality of cooling pipe 11, Wu Figs.1-2) (Wu Translated Document on page 4 paragraph 10 teaches “fan 2 continuously blowing air to the air outlet pipe 1”; it is well known that the principle of working fan is fan gets its air supply from the surrounding environment; specifically, the fan blades rotate, creating a low-pressure area behind them; this draws air in from all directions towards the back of the fan, and then pushes it forward; therefore, since Wu Translated Document on page 4 paragraph 10 teaches “fan 2 continuously blowing air to the air outlet pipe 1”; in combination, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the fan is designed to suck in air outside the microwave cavity in order to inject it into the at least one air distribution plenum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, by adding the fan designed to suck in air outside in order to inject it into the air distribution plenum, as taught by Wu, in order to improve ventilation and air quality because the fan suck in air outside and inject it into the air distribution plenum would help dissipate heat from the microwave cavity, preventing overheating and extending the pasteurization facility lifespan. Additionally, airflow through the microwave cavity would help carry away steam, preventing condensation buildup that can lead to moisture damage and potential electrical issues.
Regarding claim 20, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 19, and also teaches
wherein the at least one air distribution plenum (cooling distribution tube 56, Ruozi Fig.17; it is noted that in combination, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the Ruozi Fig.17 cooling distribution tube 56 is incorporated in the Ruozi Fig.7 to be located above the conveyor belt and configured to distribute air) has a tubular section (cooling distribution tube 56 has tubular section along the tube because the definition of “tube” is “a long, hollow cylinder of metal, plastic, glass, etc. for holding or transporting something, chiefly liquids or gases” – according to Oxford Languages Dictionary) in which the air distribution orifices (distribution orifices of the distribution tube 56, Ruozi annotated Fig.17 below) are provided.
PNG
media_image2.png
585
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruozi Fig.7 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited) in view of Ruozi Fig.17 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited), Wu (CN 216448433 U, previously cited), Allen (U.S. Patent No. 6,534,306 B1, previously cited), and further in view of Dobie (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0202444 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 6, and also teaches the at least one ventilation unit comprises a fan (as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 6 above). However, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen does not teaches:
wherein the at least one ventilation unit has an air flow rate comprised between 100 and 1,000 m3/h.
Dobie teaches a fan configured to provide air to the plenum (Dobie Par.0025 & Fig.3):
wherein the at least one ventilation unit (fan 20, Dobie Par.0025 & Fig.3) has an air flow rate comprised between 100 and 1,000 m3/h (Dobie Par.0025 teaches: “Fan 20 is delivering approximately 120 cfm into plenum 12”; it is noted that 120 cfm is equal to approximately 204 m3/h; therefore, Dobie teaches the range that is within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen fan (see the Wu fan 2 in Wu Fig.1) with the Dobie fan (see the Dobie fan 20 in Dobie Fig.3), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing fan configured to suck air from surrounding to provide air into the air distribution plenum. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 12, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
wherein the ventilation cooling system (ventilation cooling system comprises air cooling ducts 32, Ruozi Figs.7-8) is designed to inject air (as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1), at an outlet of the air distribution orifices (distribution orifices of the distribution tube 56, Ruozi annotated Fig.17 below; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above)
PNG
media_image2.png
585
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen does not teach:
at a propagation speed comprised between 10 m/s and 15 m/s.
Dobie teaches an air to the plenum with air distribution orifices (Dobie Fig.3 & Par.0025):
an outlet of the air distribution orifices (see jet orifices 22 of the plenum 12 in Dobie Fig.3 & Par.0025), at a propagation speed comprised between 10 m/s and 15 m/s (Dobie Par.0025 teaches: “Fan 20 is delivering approximately 120 cfm into plenum 12; airflow 18 crosses obstruction 16 travelling at approximately 500 fpm to create the vortices 14. The air vortices 14 then exits orifices 22 at approximately 3000 fpm.”; it is noted that 3000 fpm is equal to approximately 15 m/s. Since the reference shows the overlap at the end point (15 m/s). The courts have held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, the propagation speed of the prior art is 15 m/s which overlaps at the end point (15 m/s) with the claimed propagation speed and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.)
The courts have held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, the propagation speed of the prior art is approximately 15 m/s which overlaps at the end point (15 m/s) with the claimed propagation speed and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, by making the propagation speed at the outlet of the air distribution orifices to be 15 m/s, as taught by Dobie, in order to accelerate and project the air over the packages at propagation speed adapted to facilitate cooling to maintain a thermal equilibrium at the level of the packages seal film.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruozi Fig.7 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited) in view of Ruozi Fig.17 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited), Wu (CN 216448433 U, previously cited), Allen (U.S. Patent No. 6,534,306 B1, previously cited), and further in view of Shuck et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,268,398 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 8, and teaches the tubular section of the at least one air distribution plenum, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen does not teach:
the tubular section has a transverse dimension comprised between 50 mm and 100 mm.
Shuck teaches an air distribution pipe (34, Shuck Fig.2):
the tubular section of the at least one air distribution plenum (air distribution pipe 34, Shuck Fig.2) has a transverse dimension comprised between 50 mm and 100 mm (Col.7 lines 58-62 teaches: “Air distribution pipe 34, which is approximately 10 feet in length and four inches in diameter, includes a substantially evenly spaced series of 18 air outlets 84 which are positioned along the downwardly facing surface of air distribution pipe.”; therefore, Shuck teaches tubular section of the air distribution pipe 34 has a transverse dimension of approximately 4 inches, which is approximately 100 mm. Since the reference shows the overlap at the end point (100 mm). The courts have held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, the transverse dimension of the prior art is approximately 100 mm which overlaps at the end point (100 mm) with the claimed transverse dimension and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.).
The courts have held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, the transverse dimension of the prior art is 4 inches, which is approximately 100 mm that overlaps at the end point (100 mm) with the claimed transverse dimension and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, by making tubular section of the air distribution pipe/plenum to have a transverse dimension of approximately 4 inches, as taught by Shuck, in order to facilitate cooling by conveying ambient air to and within the microwave cavity to provide sufficient airflow. The modification would optimize the airflow dynamics and ensure even cooling of the products on the conveyor.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruozi Fig.7 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited) in view of Ruozi Fig.17 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited), Wu (CN 216448433 U, previously cited), Allen (U.S. Patent No. 6,534,306 B1, previously cited), and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 102726521 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches the ventilation cooling system is designed to inject air, but does not teach
the air is at a cooling temperature comprised between 4°C and 65°C.
Tang teaches a pasteurization facility (Tang Translated Abstract)
the air is at a cooling temperature comprised between 4°C and 65°C (Tang Translated Document Claim 2 teaches: “cooling air temperature is 19 degrees centigrade”; therefore, Tang teaches the cooling air is at a cooling temperature of 19°C, which is within the claimed range)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, by adding the teaching of the cooling air is at a cooling temperature of 19°C, as taught by Tang, in order to facilitate cooling by conveying sufficient cold air to and within the microwave cavity to provide sufficient air temperature for cooling the products being conveyed on the conveyor inside of the microwave cavity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruozi Fig.7 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited) in view of Ruozi Fig.17 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited), Wu (CN 216448433 U, previously cited), Allen (U.S. Patent No. 6,534,306 B1, previously cited), and further in view of Liu (CN 101897467A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the air distribution orifices (distribution orifices of the distribution tube 56, Ruozi annotated Fig.17 below; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) are located at a separation height (there is space between distribution orifices and conveyor belt 48, Ruozi Fig.17) above the conveyor line (conveyor belt 48, Ruozi Fig.17)
PNG
media_image2.png
585
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen
the separation height being comprised between 10 cm and 15 cm.
Liu teaches an air distribution system that is located above a conveyor line (Liu Fig.1):
the separation height being comprised between 10 cm and 30 cm, instead of 10 cm to 15 cm as required by the claim (Liu Translated Document on page 7 Claim 1 teaches: “the drying device (51) is arranged above the functional transmission device (32) and there is a gap of 100-300mm between the drying device (51) and the planar transmission belt (322) of the functional transmission device (32)”; it is noted that Liu Translated Document on page 7 Claim 2 teaches the drying device 51 comprises an air pipe 511 and a vent hole 512; is it further noted that 100-300 mm is equal to 10-30 cm; therefore, Liu teaches air distribution orifices are located at a separation height of 10 cm to 30 cm above the conveyor line, which overlaps the claimed range of 10 cm to 15 cm. The courts have held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, the separation height of the prior art is between 10 cm to 30 cm which overlaps with the claimed separation height of between 10 cm to 15 cm, and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separation height of Liu from between 10 cm to 30 cm to between 10 cm and 15 cm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, by making the air distribution orifices located above the conveyor line at a separation height of between 10 cm and 15 cm, as taught by modified Liu, in order to achieve sufficient gap between the air distribution orifices and the sealed food packages to effectively cool the sealed packages.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruozi Fig.7 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited) in view of Ruozi Fig.17 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited), Wu (CN 216448433 U, previously cited), Allen (U.S. Patent No. 6,534,306 B1, previously cited), and further in view of Horneff et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,824,909 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the air distribution orifices have an orifice dimension comprised between 3 mm and 10 mm.
Horneff discloses an air distribution duct (23, Horneff Fig.1):
wherein the air distribution orifices (air distribution orifices of air distribution duct 23, Horneff Fig.1) have an orifice dimension comprised between 3 mm and 10 mm (Horneff Col.4 lines 26-29 teaches: “In practice, highly advantageous results have been obtained using duct apertures or perforations of between 0.04 inch and 0.25 inch”; therefore, Horneff teaches the air distribution orifices have an orifice dimension comprised between 0.04 inch and 0.25 inch, which is equal to between 1.016 mm to 6.35 mm that overlaps with the claimed range. The courts have held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, the orifice dimension of the prior art is between 1.016 mm to 6.35 mm which overlaps with the claimed orifice dimension of between 3 mm and 10 mm, and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orifice dimension of Horneff from between 1.016 mm to 6.35 mm to between 3 mm and 10 mm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, by making the orifice dimension of the air distribution orifices to be between 3 mm and 10 mm, as taught by modified Horneff, in order to accelerate and project the air over the packages at a sufficient velocity adapted to facilitate cooling to maintain a thermal equilibrium at the level of the packages seal film.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruozi Fig.7 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited) in view of Ruozi Fig.17 (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,966 A, previously cited), Wu (CN 216448433 U, previously cited), Allen (U.S. Patent No. 6,534,306 B1, previously cited), and further in view of Ren (CN 105063733 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
wherein the air distribution orifices (distribution orifices of the distribution tube 56, Ruozi annotated Fig.17 below; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) are spaced apart from each other by a given minimum spacing distance (Ruozi annotated Fig.17 below shows distribution orifices are spaced apart from each other by a given minimum spacing distance).
PNG
media_image2.png
585
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen does not teach:
the minimum spacing distance being comprised between 40 mm and 50 mm.
Ren teaches an air pipe (302, Ren Fig.3) with plurality of air distribution orifices (3021, Ren Fig.3):
the minimum spacing distance being comprised between 40 mm and 50 mm (Ren Translated Document on page 3 – the second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “the inner diameter of the air pipe is 20-40 mm, inner diameter of said through hole is 2-6 mm, the distance between two adjacent through holes on the same air pipe 30-120 mm”; therefore, Ren teaches the minimum spacing distance being comprised between 30 mm and 120 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of between 40 mm and 50 mm. The courts have held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, the minimum spacing distance of the prior art is between 30 mm and 120 mm which overlaps with the claimed range of between 40 mm and 50 mm, and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the minimum spacing distance of air distribution orifices of Ren from between 30 mm to 120 mm to between 40 mm and 50 mm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. MPEP 2144.05 I.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruozi Fig.7 in view of Ruozi Fig.17, Wu and Allen, by making the minimum spacing distance of air distribution orifices to be between 40 mm and 50 mm, as taught by modified Ren, in order to uniformly distribute air across the microwave cavity, and accelerate and project the air over the packages at a sufficient velocity adapted to facilitate cooling to maintain a thermal equilibrium at the level of the packages seal film.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Mackay (U.S. Patent No. 9,440,795 B2) discloses apparatus and method for mass sterilization and pasteurization of food products.
Mohammed et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0183333 A1) discloses electromagnetic wave food processing systems and methods.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/23/2025
Prosecution Insights