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 1/6/26. Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 13-23 are pending in this action. Claims 2, 3, and 12 were previously cancelled.
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) and Kang et al. (US 2019/0008174).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 9, 20, 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 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 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 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.
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 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 Lytle does not explicitly disclose 55 to 68°C; 65 to 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 range taught by Lytle overlaps 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, 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 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.
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, improve meat tenderness among other features [abstract; 0014].
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 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 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 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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicants assert that there is a lack of a prima facie case of obviousness over Lytle in view of Kang because the Examiner has not provided a reason to modify Lytle. The Applicants assert that Lytle only discloses chilled water after the hot water treatment step. The Applicants assert that while Kang was used to modify the temperature of the chilled water, that Examiner’s reasons for modifying were not sufficient and that there was no objective reason to modify. The Applicants assert that there was no need to modify Lytle.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Lytle acknowledged a chilled water treatment step after it’s hot water treatment step but failed to disclose an actual temperature of the water or treatment time. Kang was not brought in the teach the step of applying a chilled solution, post hot water treatment which was already disclosed in Lytle, but it was brought in to teach a temperature range and time and to modify the composition of the chilled solution.
Further, there is always room for improvement, Kang’s use of its chilling solution for the disclosed time and temperature is an improvement on Lytle. Further Lytle allowed for the incorporation of longer chilling, including to the point of freezing the product, which renders obvious chilling at subzero temperatures for 0.5 to 2 hours, as disclosed in Kang. Again, the Examiner points out the Lytle was not modified for the inclusion of the step of chilling but for identifying a chilling temperature and time and for the modification of a chilling solution.
The Applicants assert that “The PTAB has repeatedly established that when an advantage provided by one prior art reference is redundant with an advantage already possessed by another prior art reference, there is no prima facie case of obviousness.” Lytle teaches that the decontamination hot water bath or spray water results in the reduction in microbial decontamination on carcass surfaces and thus any motivation to modify is redundant. The Applicants also assert that Kang is concerned with freshly slaughtered and eviscerated animal carcasses and does not use hot water baths.
Regarding the modification, the Examiner notes that by using a sub-zero temperature after the hot water/decontamination treatment this sub-zero temperature reduces the chance for microbial contamination and is virtually a continuation of the process of keeping the meat as contaminant free as possible. The Examiner notes that the reason for modifying was not just for decontamination purposes but also regarding meat quality. Kang was also used to modify Lytle for the chilling solution used in the chilling step. Kang does not just use a water solution, it is a chilled saline solution. Kang discloses that this subzero saline solution helps tenderize meat and further reduces possible bacterial contamination. While Lytle does disclose a chilling step with water and that its method decontaminates meat, the modification and advantage is shown where the water of Kang includes salt and has a further effect of improved meat tenderness [Kang 0022] and exposing the meat to the subzero saline solution further reduces bacterial attachment due to skin shrinkage [0021; 0029].
Regarding Kang, the Examiner notes that Kang does anticipate using animals that have not only been slaughtered and eviscerated, but also, scalded, dehaired, torched, USDA inspected and washed before its subzero saline chilling treatment [0014]. Therefore Kang envisions prior treatment steps used before the chilling step.
For the reasons above the prior art rejections are 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