Dear examiner:
The applicant has carefully studied your review opinions on this case. In view of the problems pointed out in the review opinions, the applicant has revised the application documents and stated the opinions as follows:
Version description
The revised claim * * * has 1 claims, including 2 independent claims.
1. The independent claim 1 is modified, and the technical features such as "potato chips" and "fried potato chips" are deleted, which overcomes the defects of two different protection scopes in one claim. The technical features of "the centrifugal treatment step of fried food" and "the centrifugal treatment step is also carried out under vacuum condition" are added, which makes the independent claim 1 novel and creative. The basis of this modification comes from paragraphs 12 and 13 of the specification.
2. A new subordinate claim 2~ 12 has been added, and the basis for revision comes from paragraph 10 ~ 14 of the specification.
3. The independent claim 13 is added, and the equipment claim corresponding to the independent claim 1 is required to be protected, namely "an equipment for making fried food". The basis of this modification comes from paragraph 16 of the specification.
4. A new subordinate claim 14- 15 has been added, and the basis for this modification comes from paragraph 16 of the specification.
5. Delete the original claim 4. Reference Document 2 discloses that the potato chips obtained by this method not only have large surface bubbles, but also have low oil content, which is about 13- 18%. It can be seen that reference document 2 has disclosed the same technical scheme as the original claim 4 of this application, which is not novel, so this claim is deleted.
6. The inconsistent terms "Maling potato" and "potato" in the original claim were changed to "potato".
None of the above amendments are beyond the scope recorded in the original specification and claims, and conform to the provisions of Article 33 of the Patent Law. Please refer to the revised claims for specific modifications.
The revised claim can be supported by the specification.
The original claims 1 and 3 pointed out by different examiners of the applicant are not supported in the specification.
When judging whether the claim is supported by the specification, we should consider the whole content of the specification, not just the content of the specific embodiment. In paragraph 6 of the specification of this application, it is clearly recorded that the method and equipment described in this invention are suitable for fried food, such as fried tortilla chips, fried spring rolls, fried pork chops, etc. Except potato chips. Paragraph 13 of the manual records that vacuum centrifugation has the technical effect of preventing crushing and further reducing oil content. For those skilled in the art, it can be inferred that this technical effect is also applicable to other fried foods besides potatoes. It can be seen that the technicians in this field can determine that the method and equipment in this application are suitable for fried foods other than potatoes, so the revised claim can be supported by the specification and conform to the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 26 of the Patent Law.
Third, about novelty.
1. The revised claim 1- 12 is novel.
The revised claim 1 is novel compared with the reference document 1. The reference document 1 discloses a method for frying potato chips, which includes sending potato chips into a vacuum frying device for frying, restoring the air pressure in the frying device after frying, sending the fried potato chips into a deoiling machine for deoiling, and then discharging. Comparing the technical scheme required by the revised claim 1 with the reference document 1, we can see that the reference document 1 does not disclose the technical feature that the centrifugation step in the claim 1 is also carried out under vacuum conditions, so the technical scheme protected by the claim 1 is different from that in the reference document 1.
The revised claim 1 is novel compared with the comparison document. Reference Document 2 discloses a method for preparing fried potato chips with less oil content, which includes baking potato chips, frying potato chips in a frying pan, and then contacting the potato chips with superheated steam. In this way, not only the oil content of potato chips is low, but also large bubbles are formed on the surface. The revised claim 1 includes frying food raw materials under vacuum condition and centrifuging under vacuum condition. However, these two technical features are not disclosed in Comparative Document 2. It can be seen that the technical scheme required by the revised claim 1 is different from the technical scheme disclosed in reference document 2. Therefore, claim 1 is novel and conforms to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Patent Law.
Claim 2- 12 is a subordinate claim further defined by the independent claim 1. Because the revised independent claim 1 is novel, the subordinate claim 2- 12 is also novel, which conforms to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Patent Law.
2. The revised claim 13- 15 is novel.
Compared with the reference document 13, the revised independent claim 1 has novelty. The reference document 1 discloses a fried potato chip, which comprises a feeding device, a frying device, a centrifugal oil conditioning device and a discharge chamber. However, the reference document 1 does not disclose the technical feature in claim 13 of the present application that "the outlet of the frying device is hermetically connected with the inlet of the centrifugal device, and the discharge valve is arranged at the outlet of the centrifugal device". The technical schemes of the two are different, and the technical effects they can achieve are also different. Therefore, claim 13 has a patent law compared with reference document 1. The revised independent claim 13 is more novel than document 2. Reference Document 2 does not disclose complete equipment for frying potato chips, especially the vacuum pump device and centrifugal device in independent claim 13. Therefore, the claim 13 is novel, and the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Patent Law is novel.
leave out
Fourth, about creativity.
1. The revised claim 1- 12 is creative.
Among the comparison documents provided by the examiner, the comparison document 1 can be regarded as the closest existing technology.
Compared with the reference document 1, the modified claim 1 does not disclose the technical characteristics of centrifugation under vacuum conditions, nor does it give corresponding technical enlightenment, which cannot solve the technical problems that the fried new products in the prior art are high in oil content, easy to be broken and cannot obtain fried foods with complete shapes. Therefore, the claim 1 has outstanding substantive features and significant progress compared with the reference document 1, which conforms to the provisions on creativity in the third paragraph of Article 22 of the Patent Law.
In contrast, the technical scheme of Reference Document 2 is to solve the problem of high oil content by contacting superheated steam with fried food. Claim 1 does not disclose the technical means of vacuum centrifugation, nor does it apply this technical means to solve the technical problem that "fried new products in the prior art have high oil content and are easily broken, so the fried food with complete shape cannot be obtained". Moreover, there is no technical inspiration to apply this technical means to the closest comparison document 1 to solve the above technical problems. Therefore, the revised claim 1 is not obvious and has outstanding substantive features.
Therefore, by adopting the technical means of vacuum centrifugation, the invention has achieved the technical effects of further reducing the oil content of fried food, preventing the fried food from being broken and maintaining the complete shape, and has remarkable technical progress.
To sum up, the revised claim 1 has outstanding substantive features and remarkable progress, and is more creative than the comparison document 1, 2 or both, which conforms to the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 22 of the Patent Law.
leave out
2. The revised claim 13- 15 is creative.
See model essay