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 .
The status of the 03/06/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 have been amended; Claims 6, 19, and 25 have been canceled; Claims 11-18, 20-24, and 26-27 have been withdrawn; and claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-24, and 26-27 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, and 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1: the phrase “a given injector needle included in the plurality of injector needles have” in lines 3-4 should be read “a given injector needle included in the plurality of injector needles has” because the given injector needle is singular.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claim 4 and claim 10:
The limitation “a control system” in line 1
“system” is the generic placeholder.
“control” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “a control system" in line 1 of claim 4 and claim 10 has been described in published specification in para. 0059 as the computer control system 600; fig. 6.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosse-Butenuth (US 20070160720, hereinafter Butenuth) in view of Henning (US 6658990), and Hansen (US 20030167934)
Regarding Claim 1, Butenuth discloses an injection machine (injector 10; fig. 1), comprising:
a needle assembly (needles 20) including a plurality of injector needles (needles 20) arranged into a pattern to cover a horizontal injection area (para. 0019) (it is noted that the needles 20 are arranged in a straight line to cover a horizontal area of the belt 24),and
a conveyor (belt 24) positioned below the needle assembly (hollow needles 20) (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Butenuth does not disclose:
wherein a given injector needles included in the plurality of injector needles have side exit ports located proximally with respect to a tip of the given injector needles;
wherein the conveyor includes perforations on a top surface of the conveyor, wherein the perforations at least match the pattern of the plurality of injector needles to allow the plurality of injector needles to be lowered to place the side exit ports of the plurality of injector needles at or just above the top surface of the conveyor.
However, Henning discloses a given injector needle (needles 30) included in the plurality of injector needles (needles 30) have side exit ports (plurality of openings 35; figs. 3 and 6) located proximally with respect to a tip of the given injector needles (points 31) (col. 4, lines 40-54).
PNG
media_image2.png
630
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
432
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the injector needles of Butenuth with the injector needles of Henning such that the given injector needle included in the plurality of injector needles have side exit ports located proximally with respect to the tip of the needles, in order to ensure that fluid medium for food treatment is injected into food products through the side exit ports for uniform distribution of the fluid medium throughout the food products (col. 4, lines 40-54 of Henning).
The modification does not disclose the conveyor includes perforations on a top surface of the conveyor, wherein the perforations at least match the pattern of the plurality of injector needles to allow the plurality of injector needles to be lowered to place the side exit ports of the injector needles at or just above the top surface of the conveyor.
However, Hansen discloses the conveyor (belt 176) includes perforations (a plurality of apertures 178) on a top surface of the conveyor (para. 0113; fig. 9), wherein the perforations (a plurality of apertures 178) at least match the pattern of the plurality of injector needles (injection head comprising a plurality of nozzles 196) to allow the plurality of injector needles (plurality of nozzles 196) to be lowered (para. 0113, 0115, and 0118; figs. 9, 11, and 12) (it is noted that apertures 178 allow the nozzles 196 of the injection head 140 to be lowered to reach the subject to be injected positioned below the belt 176. It is noted that each of the plurality of apertures 178 is a straight line that matches the pattern of nozzles 196 which is also a straight line. Therefore, the plurality of apertures 178 at least matches the pattern of the nozzles 196).
PNG
media_image4.png
369
837
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
523
1004
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conveyor of Butenuth in view of Henning to include perforations on the top surface of the conveyor as taught by Hansen, wherein the perforations at least match the pattern of the plurality of injector needles of Butenuth to allow the plurality of injector needles to be lowered to reach food products disposed below the belt. The motivation is to allow the to-be-injected food products to be disposed above and below the belt, thereby increase the injection speed of the injection machine, and also the perforations allow for passage of excess fluid away from the belt.
The modification would result in the structure in which the perforations (apertures 178 of Hansen) allow the plurality of injector needles (hollow needles 20 of Butenuth) to be lowered to place the side exit ports of the plurality of injector needles (plurality of openings 35 of Henning) just above the top surface of the conveyor (belt 24 of Butenuth) (para. 0113 and 0115 of Hansen) (according to Hansen, the apertures 178 allow for the nozzles to reach food products disposed below the belt. The needles 20 of Butenuth can be lowered such that the openings 35 of the needles of Henning are positioned just above the top surface of the belt 24).
PNG
media_image6.png
1517
1028
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the conveyor is an endless loop belt conveyor.
However, Hansen discloses the injection machine (title), wherein conveyor is an endless loop belt conveyor (para. 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conveyor of Butenuth such that it is the endless loop belt conveyor, because it is conventionally known to use the endless loop belt to position food products relative to the injector needles.
Regarding Claim 3, the modification discloses the tips of the plurality of injector needles (tips of needles 20 of Butenuth) travel below the top surface of the conveyor (top surface of belt 24 of Butenuth) on a downstroke of the needle assembly (para. 0115, 0113, and 0118 of Hansen) (it is noted Hansen discloses the injection nozzles 196 is lowered to a position, in which the tips of the needles are below the top surface of the belt to inject food products positioned below the belt via the apertures 178 of the belt).
Regarding Claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Henning discloses the given injector needle (needles 30) included in the plurality of injector needles (needles 30) corresponds to a hollow tube ending in a sharp tip (point 31) (fig. 6), wherein the tip (point 31) is closed (as shown in fig. 6, there is no liquid flow through point 31, therefore point 31 is closed), and wherein the side exit ports of the given injector needle (plurality of openings 35 of the needle 30) are disposed from above the end of the tip (point 31) (fig. 6) and further arranged circumferentially around the given injector needle (needle 30) (fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
490
544
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose the plurality of side exit ports are positioned about 4 mm to about 5 mm proximally above the end of the tip.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the plurality of side exit ports of Henning such that they are positioned about 4mm to about 5mm proximally above the end of the tip, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to ensure that the liquid medium is injected into the food products through the side exit ports at desired depth into the food products so that uniform distribution of the liquid medium throughout the food products is achieved.
Regarding Claim 7, the modification discloses the conveyor (belt 176 of Hansen) includes additional perforations on the top surface (annotated fig. 9 of Hansen) in addition to the perforations (annotated fig. 9 of Hansen) that match the pattern of the plurality of injector needles (pattern of needles of Butenuth which is a straight line).
PNG
media_image8.png
482
838
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, the modification discloses the perforations (perforations 178, annotated fig. 9 in claim 7 of Hansen) and the additional perforations (perforations 178, annotated fig. 9 in claim 7 of Hansen) match two or more needle assembly patterns (annotated fig. 12 of Hansen), wherein the two or more needle assembly patterns include the pattern of the plurality of injector needles (pattern of needles of Butenuth which is a straight line).
PNG
media_image9.png
506
854
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Hansen discloses the perforations in the conveyor extend partially into the conveyor a depth (fig. 9).
The modification does not disclose the depth corresponds to a distance between an end of the tip of the given injector needle to an edge of one of the side exit ports, wherein a horizontal dimension of the perforations are at least equal to or greater than a diameter of the given injector needle.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the depth of the perforations corresponds to a distance between the end of the tip of the given injector needle to an edge of one of the side exit ports, and a horizontal dimension of the perforations are at least equal to or greater than a diameter of the given injector needle, is merely design choice. The specification of the instant application does not explain why the designing the perforations to have the depth as the distance between the tip of the needle and the side exit port, and designing the horizontal dimension of the perforations to be equal to or greater than the diameter of the needle, is critical or solve further problem in the art. It is expected that the perforations or apertures 178 of Hansen would perform equally well to allow the injection nozzles 196 to be lowered to reach the food products positioned below the belt 176 through the apertures 178 in the belt (para. 0113 and 0115 of Hansen).
Regarding Claim 10, Butenuth discloses the injection machine (injector 10; fig. 1), further comprising a control system (control unit 42) configured to control a timing of injecting fluid via the plurality of injector needles (needles 20) (“operating parameters of the injector 10, in particular the amount of brine determined by the dwell time of the needles in the product, is adjusted by the control unit”, para. 0025).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Grosse-Butenuth (US 20070160720, hereinafter Butenuth), Henning (US 6658990), and Hansen (US 20030167934) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Petursson (US 20090249964)
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except further comprising a control system configured to control the forward advance speed of the conveyor and synchronize the lifting and lowering of the needle assembly with the advancement of the conveyor.
However, Petursson discloses a control system (control means 28) configured to control the forward advance speed of the conveyor (“the endless belt is driven by a propelling means, which can be a two step propelling means controlled by the control means”, para. 0029 and 0059) and synchronize the lifting and lowering of the needle assembly (needle holder) with the advancement of the conveyor (belt) (para. 0061 and 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control system of Butenuth (i.e. control unit 42) to control the speed of the conveyor and synchronize the lifting and lowering of the needle assembly with the advancement of the conveyor as taught by Petursson, in order to automate the food injection process to improve the accuracy of penetrating the food products, which reduces manual labor and results in more valuable and presentable final food products (para. 0004 of Petursson).
Response to Amendment
With respect to claim objections: since amendments made to the claims, therefore the claim objections are withdrawn.
With respect to 112b rejections: since amendments made to the claims, therefore the 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 09 of the Remarks “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the interpretation of Hansen and
submits that Hansen fails to teach or suggest a conveyor with perforations that at least
match the pattern of a plurality of injector needles.
The instant Office Action refers to FIG. 9 and paragraphs [0113] and [0115] of
Hansen and alleges "it is noted the injection nozzles 196 of injection head 140; fig. 13 are
arranged in a straight line and each of the apertures 178 is arranged in a straight line that
matches the pattern of the injection nozzles 196 to allow the injection nozzles 196 to reach
food products mounted below the belt 176." But a singular aperture spanning a width of
conveyor belt 176 does not correspond to perforations that match a pattern of a
plurality of injector needles. A singular aperture cannot match a pattern that includes
more than one element (i.e., a plurality of injector needles arranged to cover a horizontal
injection area). Put in another way, the row of injection nozzles 196 of Hansen arranged
in a straight line, but a straight line by itself does not correspond to a pattern. The
arrangement of the injection nozzles 196 illustrated in FIG. 13 may be considered to form
a pattern with nozzles 196 separated from one another by an unlabeled distance, but the
apertures of plurality of apertures 178 of Hansen are not described as matching the pattern
of the injection nozzles 196 of Hansen.”
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive according to para. 0113 and 0115; figs. 9 and 11-12 of Hansen, the plurality of nozzles 196 of the injection head 140 forms a pattern that is a straight line. According to Webster’s definition, “pattern” is the arrangement of plurality of elements. In this case, the plurality of nozzles are arranged in a straight line. The plurality of aperture 178 of Hansen are formed on the conveyor to allow the nozzles 196 to reach food positioned below the conveyor and allow excess fluid to pass through the conveyor to the channel 160 (para. 0113 and 0115). Each of the aperture 178 that stretches the length of the conveyor forms a straight line as shown in fig. 9 that matches the pattern of the nozzles 178, which is also a straight line. Because there are the plurality of apertures 178 and each of the apertures 178 match the pattern of the nozzles 196, it reads on the claimed limitation, wherein the perforations (apertures 178) at least match the pattern of the plurality of the injector needles (nozzles 196).
PNG
media_image10.png
144
788
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
523
1004
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 09-10 of the Remarks
“Applicant notes that Hansen is related to a needleless injection
apparatus (see, e.g., paragraph [0064] of Hansen stating "the present invention is a
needleless injection apparatus ... to generate an output pressure sufficiently intense to
propel injectate efficiently and without imparting any substantial heat to the injectate." As
Hansen teaches away from using needles in an injection apparatus, Hansen cannot teach
or suggest that perforations of a conveyor match a pattern of a plurality of injector
needles. For at least the reasons above, Applicant respectfully submits that Hansen fails to
cure the deficiencies of Grosse-Butenuth and Henning meaning the combination of
Grosse-Butenuth, Henning, and Hansen fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a conveyor that
includes perforations that at least match the pattern of the plurality of injector needles.
Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of GrosseButenuth
and Hansen is improper. The instant Office Action alleges the plurality of
apertures 178 of Hansen teaches the claimed perforations not found in Grosse-Butenuth
and Henning. However, Applicant respectfully asserts that Hansen teaches away from
combination with the injectors of Grosse-Butenuth and Henning. Hansen recites in paragraphs [0029] and [0154] "there is an interest in a needleless
injection apparatus that can inject a liquid into a subject with minimal damage to the
subject itself," "there is also an interest in a needleless injection apparatus that can be
easily maintained and cleaned," and "the present invention also includes a method of
delivering injection fluid to a subject using substantially uniform, high-pressure injection
bursts of a sufficient pressure to needlelessly add flavor, color, preservatives, binders,
antimicrobial solutions and/or tenderize an injection subject without significant damage
to the external surfaces of the injection subject."
Applicant submits that Hansen teaches away from needle-based injectors such as
those of Grosse-Butenuth and Henning. Since Hansen teaches away from needle-based injectors,”
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because Hansen is relied upon for the disclosure of the conveyor having apertures 178. The modification would require the conveyor of Butenuth to have apertures as taught by Hansen to allow the needles 20 of Butenuth to reach food disposed underneath the conveyor and allow excess fluid to pass through the conveyor. Respectfully, the modification does not require the substitution of the needles 20 of Butenuth with the nozzles 196 of Hansen as implied by the Applicant. Both Butenuth and Hansen are pertinent art that pertain to inject fluid into food items. Therefore, it would be obvious to combine for the motivation to allow the to-be-injected food products to be disposed above and below the conveyor, thereby increase the injection speed of the injection machine, and also the perforations allow for passage of excess fluid away from the conveyor.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571)272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights