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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a gas… being air… and further comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of air, carbon dioxide, and combinations thereof”. It is not clear if the blown gas must be air, or whether it could instead be only CO2, or a combination of the two.
Claim 3 recites the silicone oil being “a film” in the fry oil, and the silicone oil “form an upper surface” of the fry oil. It is not clear if these are the same elements as the “film” and “uppermost layer” of parent claim 1, or not.
Claim 20 recites “the gas excludes nitrogen”. It is not clear which gas is being referred to (ie the gas blown onto the fry oil, or the gas displaced from the upper surface, or both). It is also noted that the “air” of parent claim 1 commonly included 78% nitrogen. It is not clear if claim 20 excludes air and requires only CO2 as the gas, or not. It is not clear if claim 20 simply excludes gas which consists of N2, or whether it also excludes all gases (eg. air) which include N2 as a component.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rado et al [US 2006/0024415A1] in view of Murano et al [US 2016/0120200A1], Rasanayagam et al [US 2008/0063768A1], and Beardsley et al [Pat. No. 5,454,296].
Rado et al teach a method for prevention of temperature overshoot in a cooking appliance (title) by providing a fryer containing cooking oil (paragraph 0023; Figure 1, #10, 12), means for cooling the cooking medium/oil (Figure 1, #22), the cooling means including a fan for blowing air which may be refrigerated (paragraph 0017), the cooling occurring during the cooking process and continuing afterward while heating also occurs (paragraph 0017; Figure 2), a frying temperature of 350F or 177C (Figure 4), prolonging the lifetime of the cooking oil (paragraph 0012), and the oil temperature reaching 369F (without cooling) and only 362F (with cooling) as shown in Figures 3-4 which is a difference of almost a 4C.
Rado et al do not explicitly recite silicone oil upper layer, cooling the upper layer, and replacing the gas above the fry oil with a blown a gas at a temperature of 5-100C, and evacuation (claim 1); cooling the surface at least 5C (claim 2), not less than 0.1 ppm silicone oil (claim 6, 12), a speed of at least 0.3 m/s (claim 8, 13), an evacuation duct (claim 10), the gas having less oxygen than air (claim 14), an incident angle of 20-60° (claim 15), a center surface temperature at least 2C lower (claim 16), 1-4 ppm silicone (claim 17), dimethylpolysiloxane having a viscosity of 800-5,000 or 900-1,100 mm2/s at 25C (claim 18-19), the gas excluding N2 (claim 20).
Murano et al teach a method for frying foods by use of oil (paragraph 0023) with 1-5 ppm silicone (paragraph 0026) wherein the silicone forms a surface layer on the oil and protects the cooking oil from harmful oxidation (paragraph 0004-0005) and the silicone being dimethylpolysiloxane having a viscosity of 800-5,000 or 900-1,100 mm2/s at 25C (paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed silicone features and thin uppermost layer into the method of Rado et al, in view of Murano et al, since both are directed to methods of frying foods, since Rado et al already included cooking oil but simply did not mention any specific oil types or formulations, since fryers commonly used oil with 1-5 ppm silicone (paragraph 0026), the silicone being dimethylpolysiloxane having a viscosity of 800-5,000 or 900-1,100 mm2/s at 25C (paragraph 0025), the oil providing reduced fat/oil absorption to the food (paragraph 0007), and the silicone forming a surface layer on the oil to protect it from harmful oxidation (paragraph 0004-0005) as shown by Murano et al, and since the claimed silicone upper layer would have enabled better preservation of the cooking oil of Rado et al, in view of Murano et al.
Rasanayagam et al teach a method for quick chilling fry oil under modified atmosphere (title) including forcible cooling with gas blowing onto the surface of the fry oil (Figure 1, #102, 301), the gas including inert gas such as argon and helium and excluding oxygen (paragraph 0021), and forcibly displacing gas including oxygen in the headspace above the fry oil (paragraph 0021).
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed cooling the upper layer, and replacing the gas above the fry oil, degree of surface cooling, incident angle, and temperature values in the method of Rado et al, in view of Murano et al and Rasanayagam et al, since all are directed to methods of frying, since Rado et al already included a fan blowing air at the fry oil but simply did not mention a specific angle, upper surface location, or temperature; since room temperature air was commonly considered to be about 20C, since cool air would have provided even faster cooling of the fryer oil of Rado et al as compared to hotter air, since fryer oil was commonly cooled by blowing cool gas onto the oil surface as shown by Rasanayagam et al, since the upper surface of fryer oil (ie the thin film silicone disclosed by Murano et al) is exposed to the atmosphere and would provide direct contact with the cooling air of Rado et al and thus be cooled to a greater degree than the fry oil below the silicone layer, since blowing gas at the oil surface (ie the thin film silicone disclosed by Murano et al) using a relatively flat angle would have blown air across the surface of the fry oil without substantially disturbing the protective surface layer of silicone oil, since the static layer of silicone oil on the surface of the oil would be expected to cool faster than the fry oil below it because the fryer oil was being actively heated by the fryer, and since the claimed angle and temperature values would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization due to factors such as the air speed, the desired degree of cooling, the desired time for cooling, and/or the initial temperature of the oil in the method of Rado et al, in view of Murano et al and Rasanayagam et al.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed gas (ie low oxygen and not solely N2) in the method of Rado et al, in view of Murano et al and Rasanayagam et al, since all are directed to methods of frying, since Rado et al already included cooling with refrigerated air, since fryer oil was also commonly cooled with inert gas such as argon or helium which is free of both oxygen and nitrogen (paragraph 0021) as shown by Rasanayagam et al, since fryer systems already included a silicone surface layer on the oil which protects the cooking oil from harmful oxidation (paragraph 0004-0005) as shown by Murano et al, since the cool inert gas of Rasanyagam et al would have provided faster cooling of the oil of Rado et al, and since inert gas such as Ar or He would have helped prevent harmful oxidation of the fryer oil of Rado et al, in view of Murano et al and Rasanayagam et al.
Beardsley et al teach a method for frying food by providing an oil bath in a fryer (Figure 2, #40), providing forced air cooling by inducing a flow of ambient air with a speed of at least 100 ft/min or 0.508 m/s across the oil surface during frying due to evacuation (column 3, lines 54-64), the ambient air naturally possessing a temperature of less than 100C which would naturally provide cooling of the oil surface due to the oil possessing a much higher temperature of 375-390F or 190-198C (column 6, line 3), an evacuation duct above the fryer (Figure 1, #14, 44), a forced air cooling device in the form of a blower or fan providing the motive force for the air flow (Figure 4, #70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed gas speed and evacuation into the invention of Rado et al, in view of Beardsley et al, since both are directed to methods of frying foods, since Rado et al already included forced cooling with air but simply did not mention a gas speed, since frying systems commonly included forced air cooling by inducing a flow of ambient air with a speed of at least 100 ft/min or 0.508 m/s across the oil surface during frying due to evacuation (column 3, lines 54-64), since the combination of pulling air via evacuation and supplying air via blowing would have provided easier and more effective air movement in the system of Rado et al, and since the claimed gas speed would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures based upon factors such as the time needed for cooling, the desired degree of cooling, and/or the gas and oil temperatures in the method of Rado et al, in view of Beardsley et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references do not disclose blowing and evacuation. However, Rado et al teach means for cooling the cooking medium/oil (Figure 1, #22) and the cooling means including a fan for blowing air which may be refrigerated (paragraph 0017). Beardsley et al teach providing forced air cooling by inducing a flow of ambient air with a speed of at least 100 ft/min or 0.508 m/s across the oil surface during frying due to evacuation (column 3, lines 54-64).
Applicant argues that Rado et al did not disclose silicone oil. However, Murano et al teach a method for frying foods by use of oil (paragraph 0023) with 1-5 ppm silicone (paragraph 0026) wherein the silicone forms a surface layer on the oil and protects the cooking oil from harmful oxidation (paragraph 0004-0005) and the silicone being dimethylpolysiloxane having a viscosity of 800-5,000 or 900-1,100 mm2/s at 25C (paragraph 0025).
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). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that blowing air led to an unexpected result of preventing oil deterioration due to oxygen exposure. However, Murano et al also teach the silicone forms a surface layer on the oil and protects the cooking oil from harmful oxidation (paragraph 0004-0005).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792