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 .
This office action is written in response to the Applicants Remarks filed 1/9/26. Claims 1-22 are pending and have been examined. Claim 22 is new.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 103(a) rejection of claim 10 over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view and Gurol et al. (US 2004/0000069) has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 13-15, 18, and 19 over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012 and Gurol et al. (US 2004/0000069) have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 16, 17, and 21 over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012, and Gurol et al. (US 2004/0000069) as applied to claim 13 above and in further view of Garwood et al. (WO 02/044026 or AU 2002220000) have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 20 over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012 and Gurol et al. (US 2004/0000069) as applied to claim 13 above and in further view of Burr et al. (US 2021/0368826) has been withdrawn.
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 1-22 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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the step of actually sealing the sealable vessel. The claims recite that the method utilizes a vessel and characterizes the vessel as a sealable vessel. This sealable vessel is said to undergo vacuum and pressurization steps. However, there is no recited step of actually sealing the vessel such that it is sealed and the method steps of applying a vacuum and applying positive pressure would be effective. The vessel is constantly called “sealable” but there is no indication of the point at which it is sealed or if it is ever sealed.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 10, 13-22 have allowable subject matter since the prior art of record does not disclose applying positive pressure to a sealed container after the application of vacuum to a sealed container. The Examiner notes that Applicants have not explicitly recited a sealed vessel. Applicants are asked to amend the claims to explicitly recite the state of the vessel being in a closed or sealed state.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012.
Regarding Claims 1-3: Benton discloses a method of making feed blocks for animals [abstract]. Benton discloses heating a mixture comprising molasses, additives and nutrients at a temperature of less than about 130°F (54°C) [abstract]. Benton discloses applying a partial vacuum during the treating process and that the vacuum attained is about 29 inHg (about 98 kilopascals) [col. 5, lines 45-57]. Benton discloses agitating the mixture during the heating/vacuum steps [abstract]. Benton discloses pre-mixing molasses and then adding dry meal to the molasses in a vacuum dehydrator [Fig. 2]. Benton discloses that the agitating and concentrating and addition of dry meal after water content has been reduced occurs in the vacuum dehydrator [Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 65-67; col. 6, lines 1-7]. Benton discloses that the dehydration is performed in a closed system and that this aids in the easily and accurately measured removal of water [col. 7, lines 1-14]. Benton discloses the process as occurring in a single dehydration vessel [col. 7, lines 38-42].
Benton does not disclose that the method is automated.
Atherton discloses a method for making an animal feed product that can be automated [0045]. Atherton discloses continuously weighing and monitoring the mixing vessel and storage tank when necessary and discloses the changeability of parameters including components, processing temperatures, time, and vacuum level [0071; 0092].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Benton to include automation as in Atherton in order to monitor, analyze, and make corrections during the process.
Although Benton does not explicitly disclose the temperature between 50°C to 75°C one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Benton overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 2, regarding the vacuum pressure, the amount at about 29in Hg one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Benton overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 3, regarding the vacuum pressure, the amount at about 29 in Hg is substantially close to that of the instant claims, one of ordinary skill would have expected compositions that are in such close proportions to those in prior art to be prima facie obvious and to have same properties. Titanium Metals Corp., 227 USPQ 773 (CAFC 1985).
Regarding Claim 4: Benton as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Benton discloses concentrating to reduce the moisture content about 2 to 3% [col. 5, lines 46-52]. Benton does not disclose a weight reduction of 15 % to 85% (due to moisture reduction) but does disclose that the moisture content reaches about 2 to 3% and is treated in the same way as the instant liquid ingredient. Therefore weight reduction of the same range would have been achieved by Benton.
Further, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art weight teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 5: Benton as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Benton discloses monitoring the amount of water removed to a desired level [col. 5, lines 57-63]. Benton does not disclose further comprising the steps of monitoring, by a controller, the weight of the liquid ingredient until the weight corresponds to a target weight value of the concentrated liquid ingredient based on a target moisture percentage for the concentrated liquid ingredient; and ending, by the controller, the step of concentrating when the weight of the concentrated liquid ingredient reaches the target weight value.
Atherton discloses a method for making an animal feed product that can be automated [0045]. Atherton discloses continuously weighing, monitoring, analyzing, and correcting the mixing vessel and storage tank when necessary using an electronic load unit and controlled by a computer [0045; 0071].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Benton to include monitoring the weight of the liquid ingredient during the concentrating process as in Atherton in order to continuously monitor the stages of the liquid premixture.
Regarding Claim 6: Benton as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Benton discloses that the agitating and concentrating and addition of dry meal after water content has been reduced occurs in the vacuum dehydrator [Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 65-67; col. 6, lines 1-7]. The Examiner notes that when the dry ingredients are added separately from the original liquid premixture, it would have been obvious to release the pressure from the vacuum before adding it since otherwise opening while the vacuum was occurring would have been a dangerous step. Further regarding the order of adding ingredients, the Examiner notes Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F. 2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F. 2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 7: Benton as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Benton does not disclose applying the vacuum, intermittently during the step of mixing, for periods of between ten seconds to sixty seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to apply vacuum so that it does not promote foaming or boiling over of the liquid ingredients as can be found when applying heat and vacuum to sugars. Optimization of the vacuum application would have been an optimizable parameter for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 8: Benton as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Benton discloses the dry meal being added feed nozzle, or preferably by a scale hopper, or a screw conveyor [col. 5, lines 65-67; col. 6, lines 1-5]. Benton does not explicitly disclose adding the dry premix into the sealable vessel by gravity between the intermittent applications of vacuum based on a predetermined reduction in weight of the concentrated liquid ingredient.
Atherton discloses dropping carrier material into the storage tank containing the liquid feed material [0067-0068].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Benton to include adding the dry ingredients by dropping in the top of the storage tank as in Atherton in order to help form a homogenous of feed.
Regarding Claim 9: Although Benton discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Benton further discloses heating the dehydrated feed to between 155 to 170°F (68.8 °C to 76.6°C) or up to 180°F (82.2°C).
Regarding Claim 11: Benton as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Benton does not disclose determining the opening and closing of a product outlet valve of the sealable vessel based on a reduction in weight of the animal feed composition.
Atherton discloses an entrance and exit valve for filling and emptying the container and that a conduit or chute can be used [0044]. Atherton discloses using a weight sensor for monitoring and controlling the device which includes the opening and closing of valves [0043; 0044].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Benton to include the step of controlling the exit valve as in Atherton in order to provide an efficient means for producing the animal feed block particularly increasing productivity and the reliability of the production of animal feed blocks.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Wicking et al. (US 2009/0181126).
Regarding Claim 12: Benton as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Benton does not disclose wherein a primary component of the animal feed composition is a grain-based byproduct having an initial moisture content between 45% to 75%.
Wicking discloses an animal feed from distiller’s grains (DDG or DDGS) [abstract]. Wicking discloses distiller’s grains as having a moisture content of about 65% to 70% [0050].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Benton to include distiller’s grains with a moisture content of 65 to 70% as in Wicking since distiller’s grains are commonly used as a supplement in animal feed and since the moisture content will be reduced due to the vacuum and heating steps and thus concerns about the short shelf life of the grains would be resolved.
Response to Arguments
The 103(a) rejection of claim 10 over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view and Gurol et al. (US 2004/0000069) has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 13-15, 18, and 19 over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012 and Gurol et al. (US 2004/0000069) have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 16, 17, and 21 over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012, and Gurol et al. (US 2004/0000069) as applied to claim 13 above and in further view of Garwood et al. (WO 02/044026 or AU 2002220000) have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 20 over Benton et al. (US 6,440,478) in view of Atherton et al. (CN 101190004 Machine Translation) 4/18/2012 and Gurol et al. (US 2004/0000069) as applied to claim 13 above and in further view of Burr et al. (US 2021/0368826) has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claims 1-9, 11, and 12 , Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants assert that the combination of the Benton is based on an improper interpretation of Benton. The Applicants assert that the interpretation of the vacuum applied in Benton is improper. The Applicants assert that the phrase about 29 inches of mercury has been misinterpreted and that in Benton this is not a disclosure of what is happening within the closed vessel and instead discloses that the vessel is subjected to a vacuum and that the internal pressure would have been only about 0.9 -1.0 inHg.
The Examiner disagrees. The Benton reference clearly discloses applying vacuum to a dehydration vessel. Benton discloses that the vessel is vacuum tight and that during this step, the feed material is dehydrated. This shows that the temperature and pressure are having a direct effect upon the materials within the vessel. Further Benton discloses that after mixing is completed within the dehydration vessel that the vacuum is then broken and the mixture is dropped out of the vessel [Benton col. 6, lines 30-36]. Applicants cannot write their own interpretation of what is happening in the steps especially where the reference makes plain the meaning and disclosure of the steps.
Further, the Applicants arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims because the claims do not recite a closed vessel.
The Applicants assert that the Benton reference incorporated McKenzie and Benton-Patrick by reference and since these references disclosed a high vacuum that resulted in no more than 6 inHg applied to the interior vessel and Benton-Patrick which supports the interpretation that the fluid feed was not subjected to high vacuum.
The Examiner notes that the Benton reference discloses the Benton-Patrick reference as providing an improvement over McKenzie [col.1, lines 54-55]. The Examiner also notes that Benton discloses that in Benton-Patrick the dehydrated mixture is subjected to vacuum [col. 1,lines 62-66] which shows that the vacuum is directly acting upon the feed ingredients within the vessel and not the vessel. Further Benton itself discloses that the vessel operates at a partial vacuum [col. 2, lines 44-49]. This does not say that a partial vacuum is applied to the dehydrator. The dehydrator itself is operating at a partial vacuum, therefore the feed contents are exposed to this partial vacuum. The Examiner maintains that the step of applying a vacuum is clear and that no interpretation is necessary.
For the reasons above, the rejections of claims 1-9, 11, and 12 have been maintained.
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 FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793