DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 1-6, and 8-10 have been examined.
Claim 11 remains withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but is unpersuasive. The arguments concern the rejection based upon Lesar in view of Barnes and Kearns.
The applicants first argue that Kearns does not or is capable of creating a venturi. This is strongly disagreed, as the stated teaching by Kearns is a venturi die as stated. The argument that Kearns is not a main reference is further disagreed as the structure of Kearns would be capable of grinding upon the materials. The argument concerning the plate is unpersuasive as the venturi die 22 would encompass the claimed orifice plate, as it is a die that is attached to the end of the extruder. The apparatus claims are directed to the claimed structures and wherein, the venturi die of Kearns are seen as encompassing the claimed geometries of the apertures of the plate. That Kearns does not state of any venturi effect is noted but unpersuasive in terms of comparison of claimed structures. The claimed structure does not provide further additional structural limitations that would distinguish from the Kearns teaching. The arguments concerning the pressure are unpersuasive as the venturi die is seen as encompassing the claimed geometry. What is occurring to the product from the operation noted from the arguments, but these are process limitations and there does not appear to be any particular claimed structural limitations that are provided which would provide such operations that would differentiate from the teaching of Kearns.
Further, after reassessing the teachings of Kearns, it is noted that there is a teaching of a knife is mounted at the end of the device, see Kearns, Col. 6, lines 34-37 and wherein, the rejection of the claims have been reassessed and modified as show below. The rejection now utilizes the teaching of Lesar for the use of a hopper and collection cone that is combined with the Kearns teaching.
The combination of the particular geometry of venturi orifices of Pease is relevant to the venturi die of Kearns. The argument of the combination of these references have been considered, but are not persuasive as the Pease venturi orifice teachings would be relevant to the orifices of venturi die of Kearns in terms of structure. The argument of how the structure is operated is noted but unpersuasive.
As stated previously, the obviousness double patenting rejection of the claims remain as previously stated, see Final Rejection dated 8/29/2023, including the reason why the terminal disclaimers submitted by the applicants have not been approved. As previously stated, in reviewing the application history, applicants have previously submitted on 1/7/2016, however none of the terminal disclaimers were accepted, see Office Action dated 5/18/2016. Wherein the deficiencies include that the party identified in the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant of record. Further, there appears to be only a single applicant/inventor of record. A request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c) must be filed and must include an application data sheet specifying the applicant in the applicant information section and comply with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73. To be reconsidered, the terminal disclaim must be filed with the request under 37 CFR 1.46(c).
After further reconsideration of the arguments, the claims remain rejected as shown below.
Double Patenting
The text for the basis for double patenting not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, and 8-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8979522.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims in the instant and copending applications discloses essentially the same subject matters.
With respect to the fibers material aligning in primary direction of flow as recited in claims 2 and 4 of the instant application, the Examiner submits that because the instant application and the mentioned US Patent teach grinding apertures that create a venturi effect (see claim 1 of the mentioned instant application and that of the mentioned US Patent) and wherein said grinding apertures align fibers materials (see claims 2 and 4 of the mentioned instant application and that of the mentioned US Patent), then it would follow that said venturi effect as taught by the mentioned US Patent would be capable of aligning said fiber in primary direction of flow. NOTE: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an Applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently posses the characteristics of his/her claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, “on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 1-6, and 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-10, 14, and 16 of copending Application No. 13/999099 in view of Lesar et al. (US2007/0090221A1).
Although the claims at issues are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims in the instant and copending applications discloses essentially the same subject matters except for a “knife assembly mounted at the end of said device, said knife assembly rotating with said device” as recited in claims 1 and 9-10 of the instant application. However, Lesar discloses that the underlined limitation is known in the art as demonstrated in the rejection below. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lesar’s knife assembly to the apparatus of the copending application for the purpose providing a means for cutting the material of the copending application.
With respect to the fibers material aligning in one direction as recited in claims 2 and 4 of the instant application, the Examiner submits that because the instant application and the mentioned copending application teach grinding apertures that create a venturi effect (see claim 1 of the mentioned instant application and claim 4 of the mentioned copending application) and wherein said grinding apertures align fibers materials (see claims 2 and 4 of the mentioned instant application and claims 5 and 7 of the mentioned copending application), then it would follow that said venturi effect as taught by the mentioned copending application would be capable of aligning said fiber in primary direction of flow. NOTE: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an Applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently posses the characteristics of his/her claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, “on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 Fed 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-10 and 16 of copending Application No. 14/544499 in view of Lesar et al. (US2007/0090221A1).
Although the claims at issues are not indentical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims in the instant and copending applications discloses essentially the same subject matters except for a “knife assembly mounted at the end of said device, said knife assembly rotating with said device” as recited in claims 1 and 9-10 of the instant application. However, Lesar discloses that the underlined limitation is known in the art as demonstrated in the rejection below. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lesar’s knife assembly to the apparatus of the copending application for the purpose providing a means for cutting the material of the copending application.
The Examiner notes that the grinder plate as disclosed in the claims of the copending application reads on the orifice plate recited in the claims of the instant application. With respect to the fibers material aligning in one direction as recited in claims 2 and 4 of the instant application, the Examiner submits that because the instant application and the mentioned copending application teach grinding apertures that create a venturi effect (see claim 1 of the mentioned instant application and claim 4 of the mentioned copending application) and wherein said grinding apertures align fibers materials (see claims 2 and 4 of the mentioned instant application and claims 5 and 7 of the mentioned copending application), then it would follow that said venturi effect as taught by the mentioned copending application would be capable of aligning said fiber in primary direction of flow. NOTE: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an Applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently posses the characteristics of his/her claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, “on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 Fed 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kearns (US 4981711) in view of Lesar et al. (US2007/0090221A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kearnes teaches of a device of forming texturized food from marine protein, see Col. 5, lines 9-15, via an extruder. This being the same function as the claimed grinder. Kearns further teaches of the use of venturi die 22 that is used at the outlet 20 of an extruder 12 to yield extruded product, see texturized material, see Fig. 1, and Col. 5, lines 40-46. This is known in the processing of the food materials of the use of a venturi effect upon the materials as it can affect the texture, see also Col. 5, lines 49-61.
Further, a knife is provided that is held against the outside surface of the die, see Col. 6, lines 34-37, as it allows for severing the extruded product to the desired length.
Regarding the claimed geometry of grinding apertures to create a venturi effect that results in an acceleration of the material with a corresponding pressure drop through the grinding apertures, see the teaching by Kearns of the venturi die.
It is noted that the broadly claimed geometry is noted however, the operations of the machine including material flow velocity and of the density of the material that can affect the occurrence of venturi effect. These would be factors that are not claimed, and only regarding the geometry and whether it would be occur, and whereby Kearns teaching would be capable of forming a venturi.
Kearnes does not teach of the additional specific features such as the claimed hopper and collection cone, and specifically that the geometry of the grinding apertures are to create forces that are coaxial in the grinding apertures.
Wherein, Lesar discloses a grinding machine (50) ([0022]) (Figure 1) comprising:
a hopper (52) into which material to be ground is placed ([0003,0050)), see Figure 1.
a grinder portion (54) comprising a grinding head (56), a mounting ring (58), a bridge (60), barrel (56), and a collection tube (62) ([0003,0050)), see Figures 1-2, a device (feed screw (64)) is located in said grinding head (56) to advance material in the hopper (52) through said head (56) ([0003,0050)), see Figures 1-2; a knife assembly (knife holder (68)) mounted at end of said device (64) ([0003,0050)), see Figures 2-3;
said knife assembly (68) rotating with said device (64) and an orifice plate (74) ([0003,0055)), see Figures 2-3, a collection cone (90) located downstream of said orifice plate (74) ([0003,0052)), see Figure 2-3, said orifice plate (74) comprised of a plurality of grinding apertures (130) and at least one collection passage (134) ([0003,0068]), see Figures 2-4 and 7-8.
Examiner notes that the portion of said orifice pate (74) having grinding openings (130) that is facing said knife holder (68) (see Figures 2-4 and 7) will be referred to hereinafter as the “inlet openings" and grinding openings (130) that is facing toward said collection cone (90) (see Figures 2-4 and 7) will be referred to hereinafter as the “outlet openings" since food product such as meat is being processed beginning from the left to right of the grinding portion (54) ([(0068,0050, 0005]) as shown in Figures 1-3.
wherein said grinding apertures (130) inherently have a diameter, see Figures 4 and 7.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kearns with the hopper and collection cone as taught by Lesar as this would for feed of the material for texturizing of the material and collection of the material from the device, as this is a known configuration of the features for the device. See KSR rationale, see MPEP 2143, as this is seen as applying a known technique (manner of mounting the elements for a grinding device) to a known device (of the device of Kearns) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Note: The claimed structure of claim 1 is not limited to the types of material worked upon, and thereby the prior art references are not limited in their teachings, only that their structures are capable of working such materials. It is further noted only in dependent claims 6 and 8 states of any particular material, and here, these while noted, do not further limit the structural limitations of the parent claim.
With respect to the fibers material aligning in primary direction of flow as recited in claim 4 (and also claim 2 below), this is a material worked upon and the structure itself is only in regards to the claimed geometry that would be capable of forming a venturi effect. The Examiner submits that because the instant application and the mentioned combinations of Kearns in view of Barnes and Lesar of the apertures that have a geometry that can create a venturi effect (see claim 1 of the instant application and the rejection of the mentioned combinations above) and wherein said grinding apertures align fibers materials (see claims 2 and 4 of the mentioned instant application and the rejection of the mentioned combinations above), then it would follow that said venturi effect as taught by the mentioned combinations would be capable of aligning said fiber in primary direction of flow.
Regarding claim 2, Kearns in view of Lesar disclose said grinding apertures are capable of aligning fibers material that has been ground. The apertures being claimed as having a venturi effect and in which the cause of the effect of the material would be capable of the effect of aligning the fibers. The claim does not provide additional structural limitations to be distinct from the parent claim.
Regarding claim 3, Kearns in view of Lesar discloses said material to be ground is capable of being drawn through said grinding apertures of said orifice plate (see Lesar 74) which is capable of stretching said material. The claim does not provide additional structural limitations to be distinct from the parent claim.
Regarding claim 6, regarding the ground material is capable of having little or no release of actin and myosin, this effect is the result of the intended use of the material worked upon by the apparatus. The claim does not provide additional structural limitations to be distinct from the parent claim.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of meat to be ground is an intended use of the structure, as this is the material to be worked upon. The claim does not provide additional structural limitations to be distinct from the parent claim.
Regarding claim 10, Kearns in view of Lesar discloses all of the limitations of the instant claims of the structures as demonstrated in the aforementioned rejection of claim 1 with the difference of the further teachings of the grinding apertures. In claim 10, the grinding apertures configured to pull said material through said apertures.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kearns in view of Lesar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pease (US 2009/0275121 A1).
Regarding claim 5, regarding the geometry is a spherical hemisphere or a curved structure.
Kearns does not provide the geometry of having a spherical hemisphere or a curved structure.
However, as taught in Pease of known geometries in forming venturi as seen in Figures 11a-11c, 11e, 12a, see also [0062], wherein the geometries shown include curved surfaces and hemispherical features, which would encompass the claimed structure. The Pease reference being relevant as known geometries for venturi.
Wherein, one skilled in the art would recognize known variations of geometries in forming of venturi orifices that can be incorporated to the venturi die of Kearns. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the geometry of the modified Kearns with the geometry having a spherical hemisphere or curved structure as taught by Pease as a substitution of the geometry in forming a venturi. Here, this is seen as a simple substitution of one known element for another (in this regards of the geometry) to obtain predictable results, see MPEP 2143.
Wherein in claim 9, the claimed invention differentiates from that of claim 1 with the grinding apertures having no static or dead zones is noted, and the teaching of the specification directs concerning the geometry, see page 11 of instant specification concerning about minimum interruptions.
As taught in Pease of known geometries in forming venturi as seen in Figures 11a-11c, 11e, 12a, see also [0062], wherein the geometries shown include curved surfaces and hemispherical features, which would encompass the claimed structure concerning the spherical geometry feeding into a circular cross section, and further the flow of the different geometries include some without any disruptions. The Pease reference being relevant as known geometries for venturi.
Wherein, one skilled in the art would recognize known variations of geometries of venturi orifices that can be incorporated to the venturi die of Kearns. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the geometry of the modified Kearns with the geometry having a minimum disruptions, which would provide no static or dead zones as taught by Pease as a substitution of the geometry in forming a venturi. Here, this is seen as a simple substitution of one known element for another (in this regards of the geometry) to obtain predictable results, see MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744