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 .
In view of the Pre-Appeal Brief filed on 6/26/26, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/EMILY M LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 13-23 are pending in this action. Claims 2, 3, and 12 were previously cancelled.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-11, and 13-23 over Lytle et al. (US 2019/0037864) in view of Kang et al. (US 2019/0008174) have been withdrawn.
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, 4, 6-11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle et al. (US 2019/0037864) in view of Zhang et al. Poultry Science 2013 vol. 92 (on Applicants 9/14/21 IDS) and Kang et al. (US 2019/0008174).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 23: Lytle discloses a method of reducing surface microbial contamination after the poultry carcass has been previously scalded, defeathered, and eviscerated [abstract; Fig. 1]. Lytle discloses further treating the scalded, defeathered and eviscerated carcass generally with hot water at between 50 to 95°C, 55°C to 65°C; for 1 to 120 seconds or 40 seconds to 100 seconds respectively [0006; 0007; 0027]. Lytle discloses spraying the carcass with hot water [0016; 0029]. Lytle discloses applying chilled water or passing through an air blast chiller after the hot water treatment [0034]. Lytle allows for the chilling step to include further chilling which may cool the product beyond its surface [0034]. Lytle discloses preparing the meat product [0035].
Lytle discloses treating the carcass with hot water as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose that the spraying step is with hot water at about 55°C to about 68°C for about 30 seconds to about 5 minutes.
Lytle does not disclose the water solution comprising about 1% to 10% salt weight per volume.
Lytle does not disclose wherein the carcass is immersed in the at least one water solution at a temperature of about -0.6°C to about -4.0°C for about .5 hours to about 2 hours.
Zhang discloses that over the years, hot water treatments including at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C for 1 minute have been used for improving the safety and the decontamination of poultry meats and that hot water sprays (HWS) have been used [pg. 805, 1st column, 1st paragraph]. Zhang discloses HWS used at 71°C for 1 minute [abstract; pg. 805, 2nd column]. Zhang discloses stunning, bleeding, scalding, plucking (defeathering), and eviscerating poultry before the HWS and chilling steps [Fig. 1].
Kang discloses a meat processing method which includes improving the tenderness of an animal carcass by immersing an animal carcass in a water solution containing 1-10% (w/v) salt and further chilling [abstract; 0024; 0045]. Kang discloses chilling at -0.6°C to about -6.0°C for 1.5 to 2 hours [abstract; 0028; 0029]. Kang discloses that the carcass has been slaughtered and eviscerated [0016] and can also be scalded and dehaired [0014] before treatment.
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spraying step of Lytle to include spraying at a temperature of 71°C for 1 minute as in Zhang since Zhang discloses a temperature of 71°C which is close to about 68°C which is recited in the claim. Further, although Lytle assumes that higher temperatures correlates with shorter times, the disclosure in Lytle is not a teaching away from lower temperatures and longer times for spraying especially where it discloses this selection as typical but not as required or imperative. Further, Zhang clearly discloses that both immersion and HWS techniques can be held for a 1 min treatment time.
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Lytle to immerse the carcass in water 1.5 to 2 hours as in Kang since Kang discloses this time at subzero temperatures is sufficient to improve product safety and reduces bacterial populations [0006; 0014; 0020; 0029] and further since Lytle allows for the chilling step to include further chilling which may cool the product beyond its surface[0034].
At the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lytle to include salt in the water solution as in Kang in order to help improve product quality and safety, and to improve meat tenderness among other features [abstract; 0014].
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose about 55 to about 68°C, about 65 to about 68°C (claim 8) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the HWS temperature for reducing surface contamination, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°C; about 65 to about 68°C (claim 8) 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 ranges taught by Zhang at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 21, although Lytle does not explicitly disclose about 1 minute 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 Lytle overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 22, wherein the carcass is contacted with the hot water at a temperature of about 68°C, although Lytle does not explicitly disclose at a temperature of about 68°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 Lytle overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 23, wherein the carcass is contacted with the hot water for about 1 minute, Zhang discloses 1 minute as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Lytle does not disclose wherein the meat product does not have increased salt content after contact with the hot water and the at least one water solution.
Kang discloses that salt in the solution does not increase the salt content of the meat [0027; 0043]. Kang discloses that end product meat does not have increased salt content even though the solution contains salt. Kang discloses that it is not absorbed by the muscle of the carcass during chilling [0047].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the carcass of Lytle would not have had a significant uptake of salt as in Kang since Kang discloses that salt in chilled water is not taken up by the muscle meat.
Regarding Claim 6: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Lytle does not disclose that the carcass is cooked after the hot water treatment.
Regarding Claim 7: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Lytle discloses wherein the meat product has reduced bacterial populations compared to a meat product that is treated with traditional methods [abstract; 0003].
Regarding Claim 10: Lytle as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Lytle does not disclose wherein the carcass is immersed in the at least one water solution for about 0.5 hours to about 1.5 hours.
Kang discloses chilling for 1.5 to 2 hours [0028; 0029].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Lytle to immerse the carcass in water up 2 hours as in Kang since Kang discloses this time at subzero temperatures is sufficient to improve product safety and reduces bacterial populations [0006; 0014; 0020; 0029].
Although Kang does not explicitly disclose about 0.5 hours to about 1.5 hours 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 Kang 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 11: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Lytle does not disclose further comprising post-chilling the meat product at about 1°C to 5°C.
Kang discloses post chilling the meat product at about 1°C to 5°C [0020; claim 11].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Lytle to post chill the meat at about 1°C to 5°C as in Kang in order to maintain the meat at chilled temperatures appropriate for storage.
Regarding Claim 13: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Lytle discloses poultry carcass [abstract; 0031].
Regarding Claim 14: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Lytle discloses reduction of bacteria and specifically E.coli (gram -negative), Campylobacter (gram-negative)[0012; 0014]
Kang discloses the reduction of bacterial populations including E.coli (gram -negative), Salmonella (gram negative), Campylobacter (gram-negative); Clostridium (gram-positive); Listeria (gram positive) [0156; 0157; 0159].
Regarding Claim 15: Lytle discloses a method of reducing surface microbial contamination after the poultry carcass has been previously scalded, defeathered, and eviscerated [abstract; Fig. 1]. Lytle discloses further treating the scalded, defeathered and eviscerated carcass with hot water at between 50 to 95°C, 80 to 95°C for 1 to 120 seconds [0006; 0007]. Lytle discloses spraying the carcass with hot water [0016]. Lytle discloses applying chilled water or passing through an air blast chiller after the hot water treatment [0034].
Lytle does not disclose the hot water and or water solution comprising about 1% to 10% salt weight per volume.
Lytle does not disclose wherein the carcass is immersed in the at least one water solution at a temperature of about -0.6°C to about -4.0°C for about .5 hours to about 2 hours.
Kang discloses a meat processing method which includes improving the tenderness of an animal carcass by immersing an animal carcass in a water solution containing 1-10% (w/v) salt and further chilling[abstract; 0024; 0045]. Kang discloses chilling at -0.6°C to about -6.0°C for 1.5 to 2 hours [abstract; 0028; 0029]. Kang discloses that the carcass has been slaughtered and eviscerated [0016] and can also be scalded and dehaired [0014] before treatment.
Zhang discloses that over the years, hot water treatments including at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C for 1 minute have been used for improving the safety and the decontamination of poultry meats and that hot water sprays (HWS) have been used [pg. 805, 1st column, 1st paragraph]. Zhang discloses HWS used at 71°C for 1 minute [abstract; pg. 805, 2nd column]. Zhang discloses stunning, bleeding, scalding, plucking (defeathering), and eviscerating poultry before the HWS and chilling steps [Fig. 1].
Kang discloses a meat processing method which includes improving the tenderness of an animal carcass by immersing an animal carcass in a water solution containing 1-10% (w/v) salt and further chilling [abstract; 0024; 0045]. Kang discloses chilling at -0.6°C to about -6.0°C for 1.5 to 2 hours [abstract; 0028; 0029]. Kang discloses that the carcass has been slaughtered and eviscerated [0016] and can also be scalded and dehaired [0014] before treatment.
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spraying step of Lytle to include spraying at a temperature of 71°C for 1 minute as in Zhang since Zhang discloses a temperature of 71°C which is close to about 68°C which is recited in the claim. Further, although Lytle assumes that higher temperatures correlates with shorter times, the disclosure in Lytle is not a teaching away from lower temperatures and longer times for spraying especially where it discloses this selection as typical but not as required or imperative. Further, Zhang clearly discloses that both immersion and HWS techniques can be held for a 1 min treatment time.
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Lytle to immerse the carcass in water 1.5 to 2 hours as in Kang since Kang discloses this time at subzero temperatures is sufficient to improve product safety and reduces bacterial populations [0006; 0014; 0020; 0029] and further since Lytle allows for the chilling step to include further chilling which may cool the product beyond its surface[0034].
At the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lytle to include salt in the water solution as in Kang in order to help improve product quality and safety, and to improve meat tenderness among other features [abstract; 0014].
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose about 55 to about 68°C, about 65 to about 68°C (claim 8) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the HWS temperature for reducing surface contamination, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°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 ranges taught by Zhang at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 16: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 15. Lytle discloses reduction of bacteria and specifically E.coli (gram -negative), Campylobacter (gram-negative)[0012; 0014]
Kang discloses the reduction of bacterial populations including E.coli (gram -negative), Salmonella (gram negative), Campylobacter (gram-negative); Clostridium (gram-positive); Listeria (gram positive) [0156; 0157; 0159].
Regarding Claim 17: Lytle discloses a method of reducing surface microbial contamination after the poultry carcass has been previously scalded, defeathered, and eviscerated [abstract; Fig. 1]. Lytle discloses further treating the scalded, defeathered and eviscerated carcass with hot water at between 50 to 95°C, 80 to 95°C for 1 to 120 seconds [0006; 0007]. Lytle discloses spraying the carcass with hot water [0016]. Lytle discloses applying chilled water or passing through an air blast chiller after the hot water treatment [0034].
Lytle does not disclose the hot water and or water solution comprising about 1% to 10% salt weight per volume.
Lytle does not disclose wherein the carcass is immersed in the at least one water solution at a temperature of about -0.6°C to about -4.0°C for about .5 hours to about 2 hours.
Lytle does not disclose thereby using less potable water in the method and/or reducing the amount of wastewater in the method compared to a method when not contacting the animal carcass with hot water prior to immersing in the water solution.
Kang discloses a meat processing method which includes improving the tenderness of an animal carcass by immersing an animal carcass in a water solution containing 1-10% (w/v) salt and further chilling[abstract; 0024; 0045]. Kang discloses chilling at -0.6°C to about -6.0°C for 1.5 to 2 hours [abstract; 0028; 0029]. Kang discloses reducing the use of potable water [0048]. Kang discloses that the carcass has been slaughtered and eviscerated [0016] and can also be scalded and dehaired [0014] before treatment.
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spraying step of Lytle to include spraying at a temperature of 71°C for 1 minute as in Zhang since Zhang discloses a temperature of 71°C which is close to about 68°C which is recited in the claim. Further, although Lytle assumes that higher temperatures correlates with shorter times, the disclosure in Lytle is not a teaching away from lower temperatures and longer times for spraying especially where it discloses this selection as typical but not as required or imperative. Further, Zhang clearly discloses that both immersion and HWS techniques can be held for a 1 min treatment time.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Lytle to immerse the carcass in water 1.5 to 2 hours as in Kang since Kang discloses this time at subzero temperatures is sufficient to improve product safety and reduces bacterial populations [0006; 0014; 0020; 0029] further since Lytle allows for the chilling step to include further chilling which may cool the product beyond its surface [0034].
At the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lytle to include salt in the water solution as in Kang in order to help improve product quality and safety, improve meat tenderness among other features [abstract; 0014].
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of Lytle would have reduced the use of potable water as in Kang since treating it with hot water before the chilled water step would require less cleaning with the chilled water step as the hot water would clean the meat before immersion in the chilled water solution and the subzero temperature of the water would allow for more treatment steps with multiple sets of meat [Kang 0073].
Although Lytle does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°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 Lytle overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art 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). It would be expected that water solution would have fewer bacteria in the solution after the meat was rinsed with hot water versus no hot water treatment step.
Regarding Claim 18: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 17. Lytle does not disclose wherein the at least one water solution is used for an extended time compared to a method in which the carcass is not contacted with the hot water.
Kang discloses reducing the use of potable water and using the 10 carcasses per hour versus 5 carcasses per hour [0073].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of Lytle would have allowed for more carcasses to be used as in Kang since the subzero temperature of the water would allow for more treatment steps with multiple sets of meat [Kang 0073].
Regarding Claim 19: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 17. Lytle does not disclose wherein the at least one water solution is reused four times or more
Kang discloses reducing the use of potable water and using the 10 carcasses per hour versus 5 carcasses per hour [0073].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of Lytle would have reduced the use of potable water as in Kang since the subzero temperature of the water would allow for more treatment steps with multiple sets of meat [Kang 0073].
Regarding Claim 20: Lytle discloses as discussed above in claim 17. Lytle does not disclose including an antibacterial, chemical or disinfectant.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. Poultry Science 2013 vol. 92 (on Applicants 9/14/21 IDS) in view Kang et al. (US 2019/0008174).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 23: Zhang discloses that over the years, hot water treatments including at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C for 1 minute have been used for improving the safety and the decontamination of poultry meats and that hot water sprays (HWS) have been used [pg. 805, 1st column, 1st paragraph]. Zhang discloses HWS used at 71°C for 1 minute [abstract; pg. 805, 2nd column]. Zhang discloses stunning, bleeding, scalding, plucking (defeathering), and eviscerating poultry before the HWS and chilling steps [Fig. 1].
Zhang does not disclose the water solution comprising about 1% to 10% salt weight per volume.
Zhang does not disclose wherein the carcass is immersed in the at least one water solution at a temperature of about -0.6°C to about -4.0°C for about .5 hours to about 2 hours.
Kang discloses a meat processing method which includes improving the tenderness of an animal carcass by immersing an animal carcass in a water solution containing 1-10% (w/v) salt and further chilling [abstract; 0024; 0045]. Kang discloses chilling at -0.6°C to about -6.0°C for 1.5 to 2 hours [abstract; 0028; 0029]. Kang discloses that the carcass has been slaughtered and eviscerated [0016] and can also be scalded and dehaired [0014] before treatment.
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Zhang to immerse the carcass in water 1.5 to 2 hours as in Kang since Kang discloses this time at subzero temperatures is sufficient to improve product safety and reduces bacterial populations [0006; 0014; 0020; 0029] and further since Zhang allows for the chilling step to include further chilling which may cool the product beyond its surface [Fig. 1].
At the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Zhang to include salt in the water solution as in Kang in order to help improve product quality and safety, and to improve meat tenderness among other features [abstract; 0014].
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°C, about 65 to about 68°C (claim 8) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the HWS temperature for reducing surface contamination, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°C, about 65 to about 68°C (claim 8) 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 ranges taught by Zhang at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 22, wherein the carcass is contacted with the hot water at a temperature of about 68°C, although Zhang does not explicitly disclose about 68°C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the HWS temperature for reducing surface contamination, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose about 68°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 ranges taught by Zhang at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 23, wherein the carcass is contacted with the hot water for about 1 minute, Zhang discloses 1 minute as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Zhang does not disclose wherein the meat product does not have increased salt content after contact with the hot water and the at least one water solution.
Kang discloses that salt in the solution does not increase the salt content of the meat [0027; 0043]. Kang discloses that end product meat does not have increased salt content even though the solution contains salt. Kang discloses that it is not absorbed by the muscle of the carcass during chilling [0047].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the carcass of Zhang would not have had a significant uptake of salt as in Kang since Kang discloses that salt in chilled water is not taken up by the muscle meat.
Regarding Claim 6: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Zhang does not disclose that the carcass is cooked after the hot water treatment.
Regarding Claim 7: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Zhang discloses wherein the meat product has reduced bacterial populations compared to a meat product that is treated with traditional methods [abstract].
Regarding Claim 10: Zhang as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Zhang does not disclose wherein the carcass is immersed in the at least one water solution for about 0.5 hours to about 1.5 hours.
Kang discloses chilling for 1.5 to 2 hours [0028; 0029].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Zhang to immerse the carcass in water up 2 hours as in Kang since Kang discloses this time at subzero temperatures is sufficient to improve product safety and reduces bacterial populations [0006; 0014; 0020; 0029].
Although Kang does not explicitly disclose about 0.5 hours to about 1.5 hours 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 Kang 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 11: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Zhang does not disclose further comprising post-chilling the meat product at about 1°C to 5°C.
Kang discloses post chilling the meat product at about 1°C to 5°C [0020; claim 11].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Zhang to post chill the meat at about 1°C to 5°C as in Kang in order to maintain the meat at chilled temperatures appropriate for storage.
Regarding Claim 13: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Zhang discloses poultry carcass [abstract].
Regarding Claim 14: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Zhang discloses reduction of bacteria and specifically E.coli (gram -negative), Campylobacter (gram-negative)[abstract].
Kang discloses the reduction of bacterial populations including E.coli (gram -negative), Salmonella (gram negative), Campylobacter (gram-negative); Clostridium (gram-positive); Listeria (gram positive) [0156; 0157; 0159].
Regarding Claim 15: Zhang discloses a method of reducing surface microbial contamination after the poultry carcass has been previously scalded, defeathered, and eviscerated [abstract; Fig. 1]. Zhang discloses that over the years, hot water treatments including at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C for 1 minute have been used for improving the safety and the decontamination of poultry meats and that hot water sprays (HWS) have been used [pg. 805, 1st column, 1st paragraph]. Zhang discloses HWS used at 71°C for 1 minute [abstract; pg. 805, 2nd column]. Zhang discloses stunning, bleeding, scalding, plucking (defeathering), and eviscerating poultry before the HWS and chilling steps [Fig. 1].
Zhang does not disclose the hot water and or water solution comprising about 1% to 10% salt weight per volume.
Zhang does not disclose wherein the carcass is immersed in the at least one water solution at a temperature of about -0.6°C to about -4.0°C for about .5 hours to about 2 hours.
Kang discloses a meat processing method which includes improving the tenderness of an animal carcass by immersing an animal carcass in a water solution containing 1-10% (w/v) salt and further chilling[abstract; 0024; 0045]. Kang discloses chilling at -0.6°C to about -6.0°C for 1.5 to 2 hours [abstract; 0028; 0029]. Kang discloses that the carcass has been slaughtered and eviscerated [0016] and can also be scalded and dehaired [0014] before treatment.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Zhang to immerse the carcass in water 1.5 to 2 hours as in Kang since Kang discloses this time at subzero temperatures is sufficient to improve product safety and reduces bacterial populations [0006; 0014; 0020; 0029] and further since Lytle allows for the chilling step to include further chilling which may cool the product beyond its surface[0034].
At the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Zhang to include salt in the water solution as in Kang in order to help improve product quality and safety, improve meat tenderness among other features [abstract; 0014].
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°C it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the HWS temperature for reducing surface contamination, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°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 ranges taught by Zhang at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art 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). It would be expected that water solution would have fewer bacteria in the solution after the meat was rinsed with hot water versus no hot water treatment step.
Regarding Claim 16: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 15. Zhang discloses reduction of bacteria and specifically E.coli (gram -negative), Campylobacter (gram-negative)[abstract].
Kang discloses the reduction of bacterial populations including E.coli (gram -negative), Salmonella (gram negative), Campylobacter (gram-negative); Clostridium (gram-positive); Listeria (gram positive) [0156; 0157; 0159].
Regarding Claim 17: Zhang discloses a method of reducing surface microbial contamination after the poultry carcass has been previously scalded, defeathered, and eviscerated [abstract; Fig. 1]. Zhang discloses that over the years, hot water treatments including at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C for 1 minute have been used for improving the safety and the decontamination of poultry meats and that hot water sprays (HWS) have been used [pg. 805, 1st column, 1st paragraph]. Zhang discloses HWS used at 71°C for 1 minute [abstract; pg. 805, 2nd column]. Zhang discloses stunning, bleeding, scalding, plucking (defeathering), and eviscerating poultry before the HWS and chilling steps [Fig. 1].
Zhang does not disclose the hot water and or water solution comprising about 1% to 10% salt weight per volume.
Zhang does not disclose wherein the carcass is immersed in the at least one water solution at a temperature of about -0.6°C to about -4.0°C for about .5 hours to about 2 hours.
Zhang does not disclose thereby using less potable water in the method and/or reducing the amount of wastewater in the method compared to a method when not contacting the animal carcass with hot water prior to immersing in the water solution.
Kang discloses a meat processing method which includes improving the tenderness of an animal carcass by immersing an animal carcass in a water solution containing 1-10% (w/v) salt and further chilling[abstract; 0024; 0045]. Kang discloses chilling at -0.6°C to about -6.0°C for 1.5 to 2 hours [abstract; 0028; 0029]. Kang discloses reducing the use of potable water [0048]. Kang discloses that the carcass has been slaughtered and eviscerated [0016] and can also be scalded and dehaired [0014] before treatment.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Zhang to immerse the carcass in water 1.5 to 2 hours as in Kang since Kang discloses this time at subzero temperatures is sufficient to improve product safety and reduces bacterial populations [0006; 0014; 0020; 0029] further since Zhang allows for the chilling step to include further chilling which may cool the product beyond its surface [Fig. 1].
At the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Zhang to include salt in the water solution as in Kang in order to help improve product quality and safety, improve meat tenderness among other features [abstract; 0014].
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of Zhang would have reduced the use of potable water as in Kang since treating it with hot water before the chilled water step would require less cleaning with the chilled water step as the hot water would clean the meat before immersion in the chilled water solution and the subzero temperature of the water would allow for more treatment steps with multiple sets of meat [Kang 0073].
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°C it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the HWS temperature for reducing surface contamination, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°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 ranges taught by Zhang at 55°C and 60°C, at 65.6°C or 71°C overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art 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). It would be expected that water solution would have fewer bacteria in the solution after the meat was rinsed with hot water versus no hot water treatment step.
Regarding Claim 18: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 17. Zhang does not disclose wherein the at least one water solution is used for an extended time compared to a method in which the carcass is not contacted with the hot water.
Kang discloses reducing the use of potable water and using the 10 carcasses per hour versus 5 carcasses per hour [0073].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of Zhang would have allowed for more carcasses to be used as in Kang since the subzero temperature of the water would allow for more treatment steps with multiple sets of meat [Kang 0073].
Regarding Claim 19: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 17. Zhang does not disclose wherein the at least one water solution is reused four times or more
Kang discloses reducing the use of potable water and using the 10 carcasses per hour versus 5 carcasses per hour [0073].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of Zhang would have reduced the use of potable water as in Kang since the subzero temperature of the water would allow for more treatment steps with multiple sets of meat [Kang 0073].
Regarding Claim 20: Zhang discloses as discussed above in claim 17. Zhang does not disclose including an antibacterial, chemical or disinfectant.
Response to Arguments
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-11, and 13-23 over Lytle et al. (US 2019/0037864) in view of Kang et al. (US 2019/0008174) have been withdrawn.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Perkins et al. (US 2003/0094422) Perkins discloses a method of processing poultry to reduce microorganisms [abstract]. Perkins discloses that the poultry is pre-processed as it is previously scalded, defeathered and eviscerated [Fig. 6; 0039]. Perkins discloses non-chilling processing steps including quick sprays in water at a temperature of 60-800°F (15°-426°C) for 15 seconds or less up to 2-3 minutes [0042]. Perkins discloses the poultry processing [0117-0124].
Conclusion
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
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
