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 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. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 4 and 12-16 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the claim first recites “an integral drain valve with a male or female threaded end” the later recites “the female threaded end of the drain valve.” Therefore, it is unclear if the threaded end of the drain valve is either male or female or is required to be female. Claims 13-16 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,228,985 to Wells et al. (Wells) in view of US Patent 4,559,782 to Ritchey et al. (Ritchey).
Regarding claim 1, Wells discloses a method of draining edible cooking oil at a temperature of up to 350*F and sediment (using cooking oil filtering apparatus 10) from commercial free standing, in-battery, counter model deep fat fryers, free standing, multiple fryers, or any other commercial appliance such as a kettle, steamer, braising pan, or combi oven (fryer/vat 18), the method comprising: providing a detachable (via adapters 15 and 27), semi-rigid, flexible, drain tube (tube 14 is flexible, high temperature resistant and resilient; see col. 4, lines 15-19), attaching the drain tube to either the commercial free standing deep fat fryer, in-battery deep fat fryer, counter model deep fat fryer, or any other commercial appliance such as a kettle, steamer, braising pan, or combi oven (tube 14 is connected to drain 16 of the fryer/vat 18). Wells does not disclose the drain tube is formed of reinforced silicone having two to five plies. Ritchey teaches a drain tube (conduit 10; see abstract) formed of reinforced silicone having two to five plies (layers 16, 24, 26, 28, and 30 each of which are formed by reinforced silicone; see col. 2, lines 34-59) such that the conduit is durable, heat resistant and resistant to deterioration (col. 1, lines 46-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the tube of Wells with a multi-ply tube as taught by Ritchey such that the conduit has improved strength and resistance to deterioration which can be caused by contaminates within the oil.
Regarding claim 2, Wells as modified by Ritchey further discloses the drain tube is cooler to the touch than traditional aluminum, mild steel, black iron or stainless steel pipe (the multi-ply silicone tube has lower thermal conduction than the metal tubes and will therefore be cooler to the touch; this is a property of the material and tube construction).
Regarding claim 3, Wells as modified by Ritchey discloses the drain tube includes a threaded fitting at one end (adapters 15 and 27 are threaded; see col. 3, lines 66-68).
Regarding claim 4, Wells as modified by Ritchey further discloses the threaded fitting is a pipe nipple (adapter 27 is coupled to an end of the drain tube and can be considered a pipe nipple; see Fig. 8) having a male or female threaded end (the threaded end is either male or female) and available in various lengths (col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 2; different sizes of the adapter are available for connecting with different size drains of different fryers). Wells does not specify the threaded fitting is a stainless steel or other durable food grade material. However, stainless steel is a known durable, food-grade material with high corrosion resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the threaded fitting of stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Wells as modified by Ritchey discloses the method of claim 3, but does not specify the threaded fitting is available in various threaded attachment male and female thread types from 1/2" to 2" diameters. However, Wells does specify that different adapters of different sizes are provided for fitting with different standard sizes of the drains of the fryers. Further, the drain coupler may be either male or female, requiring the opposite adapter for proper connection. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the various adapters from 1/2” to 2” diameters in both male and female types, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B). Providing both male and female adapters with a diameter in the range of ½” to 2” provides several options for connecting with standard drain pipes as desired by Wells.
Regarding claim 6, Wells as modified by Ritchey discloses the method of claim 3, and Ritchey further teaches the drain tube is attached with a durable clamping device (col. 4, line 64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a clamping device as taught by Ritchey for securing the tube to the adapter such that the tube does not become disconnected from the adapter. Further, regarding the clamp being stainless, stainless steel is a known food-grade material with high corrosion resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the clamp of stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Wells as modified by Ritchey discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose the drain tube is offered in various lengths and shapes to meet the needs of the food service establishment. However, just as the adapter can be provided in various sizes to accommodate different fryers, the tube can also be provided in different lengths and shapes couple with different sizes and types of fryers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide different sized/shaped tubes for connection with fryers of different sizes and shapes. This modification aligns with the goal of Wells of being able to service fryers of different configurations. Further, a change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Regarding claim 11, Wells discloses a drain tube assembly, comprising: a fitting (27) including a threaded end (adapter 27 is threaded) and an opposite barb end (the end inserted into tube 14); and a drain tube (14) that extends a length between a first end and an opposite second end (the two ends of the tube), the first end of the drain tube being secured to the barb end (one end of the tube is connected to the barb end of fitting 27) of the fitting. Wells does not disclose a clamp, and the drain tube comprising a multi-ply, reinforced silicone tube being configured to convey edible cooking oil at up to 350* F. Ritchey teaches a drain tube (conduit 10; see abstract) formed of reinforced silicone having two to five plies (layers 16, 24, 26, 28, and 30 each of which are formed by reinforced silicone; see col. 2, lines 34-59) which is secured via a clamp (col. 4, line 64) such that the conduit is durable, heat resistant and resistant to deterioration (col. 1, lines 46-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the tube of Wells with a multi-ply tube as taught by Ritchey such that the conduit has improved strength and resistance to deterioration which can be caused by contaminates within the oil and to have included a clamp for securing the tube to the adapter as taught by Ritchey to prevent the tube from becoming loose.
Regarding claim 12, Wells as modified by Ritchey discloses a fryer (18), comprising: a fry pot (the oil holding portion of the fryer) configured to hold a volume of edible cooking oil; a drain line (16) including an integral drain valve (see col. 6, line 46-47; “the drain is opened to drain oil” [i.e., a drain valve is implied such that the oil only drains when the valve is moved to the open position and oil does not drain when the valve is closed]) with a male or female threaded end (adapter 15 is a male or female threaded adapter), the drain line being in fluid communication with the fry pot of the fryer; and the drain tube assembly of claim 11 (see combination of Wells and Ritchey above), the threaded end of the fitting being threadedly connected to the female threaded end of the drain valve to fluidly connect the drain tube assembly to the fryer to drain edible cooking oil from the fry pot (adapters 15 and 27 are coupled via respective threads).
Regarding claim 16, Wells as modified by Ritchey discloses a fryer system, comprising: the fryer of claim 12 (see above); and a filter bin (22) or discard container configured to receive edible cooking oil drained from the fry pot through the drain tube (best seen in Fig. 8).
Claims 9-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells as modified by Ritchey as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,967,174 to MacDonald (MacDonald).
Regarding claims 9-10, Wells as modified by Ritchey discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose the drain tube is attachable to the fryer using a quick connect assembly, wherein the quick connect assembly includes a threaded cam nipple and cam quick connect. MacDonald teaches a quick connect for a drain tube (coupling of hose 38 to drain 26) via a threaded cam nipple (the end of drain 26 as shown in Fig. 3b) and cam quick connect (cam lock fitting 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a quick connect as taught by MacDonald in place of the adapter of Wells for connecting the tube to the fryer. Such a change requires only the substitution of one known coupling with another known coupling for performing the same function. Further, quick couplings allow for faster attachment than other types of known couplings.
Regarding claims 13-15, Wells as modified by Ritchey discloses the fryer of claim 12, but does not disclose a quick connect assembly configured to fluidly connect the drain tube assembly to the fryer, the quick connect assembly including a male quick-connect fitting connected to the female threaded end of the drain valve of the fryer and a female quick-connect fitting connected to the threaded end of the drain tube fitting, wherein the male quick-connect fitting and the female quick connect fitting are connectable in a tool-less manner, wherein the quick connect assembly is a camlock fitting with the male quick-connect fitting being a cam nipple and the female quick-connect fitting being a cam coupler. MacDonald teaches a quick connect assembly (shown in Figs. 3a-3b) configured to fluidly connect the drain tube assembly (26), the quick connect assembly including a male quick-connect fitting connected to end of the drain (shown at the end of drain 26 in Fig. 3b) and a female quick-connect fitting (30) connected to the fitting, wherein the male quick-connect fitting and the female quick connect fitting are connectable in a tool-less manner (no tools are needed to connect the quick coupling), wherein the quick connect assembly is a camlock fitting (cam lock fitting 30) with the male quick-connect fitting being a cam nipple (shown in Fig. 3b) and the female quick-connect fitting being a cam coupler (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a quick connect as taught by MacDonald in the adapter of Wells for connecting the tube adapter(s). Such a change requires only the substation of one known coupling with another known coupling for performing the same function. Further, quick couplings allow for faster attachment than other types of known couplings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 February 19, 2026