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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 119-123, 125-126 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/26/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 127 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 127 includes a pressure value of “1-1000 Bars”, whereas parent claim 107 included a pressure value of “0.1-100 Bars”. It is not clear if these are the same parameter, or not. It is not clear what pressures are used in the method, or at what locations.
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.
Claim 124 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al [Pat. No. 4,216,240] in view of Noble [Pat. No. 3,060,494].
Shirai et al teach a method for preparing fibrous protein food products (title) by injecting food components into a mold or shaping tool (column 3, line 43; column 8, line 46), simultaneous injection of a protein-containing material and a fat material through two or more nozzles into the mold (column 5, lines 66 to column 6, line 2), the molded product simulating a steak (column 5, line 60), a third material simulating bone (column 6, line 6), a high-moisture
extrusion device (column 4, lines 2-11), and forming aligned protein fibers (column 6, line 18).
Shirai et al do not explicitly recite an internal mold structure for the first food and a space for the second food outside the mold structure (claim 124).
Noble teaches a food mold (title) comprising a shaping tool with plural cavities or mold
structures for different food components (Figure 3, #10, 15-16, 21), an external mold (Figure 3,
#10), and an internal mold structure (Figure 3, #15), and the product simulating a steak (Figure
4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed
mold structures into the invention of Shirai et al, in view of Noble, since both are directed to
methods of making simulated steak, since Shirai et al already included protein and fat portions
in a mold but simply did not mention the particulars of the mold structure, since food molds
commonly included a shaping tool with plural cavities or mold structures for different food
components (Figure 3, #10, 15-16, 21), an external mold (Figure 3, #10), and an internal mold
structure (Figure 3, #15), and the product simulating a steak (Figure 4) as shown by Noble, and
since this mold structure would have provided a simple and efficient means for creating the
molded steak simulation of Shirai et al, in view of Noble.
Claims 107, 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al [US 2004/0052906A1] in view of Noble and Kawkins et al [US 3,793,466].
Hernandez et al teach a method for making a two-texture food product (title) wherein the product is multi-sectional and has an external shape such as a T-bone steak (Figure 1, A), a shaping tool for receiving injection of plural different food components from different extruders (Figure 4, #100, 110, 200, 210, 300; paragraph 0032), and a low moisture extrusion with a moisture content of 10-30% (paragraph 0028).
Hernandez et al do not explicitly recite the food having plural internal sections, the tool having plural cavities for the different food components, and an injection pressure of 0.1-100 bar (claim 107).
Noble teaches a food mold (title) comprising a shaping tool with plural cavities or mold
structures for different food components (Figure 3, #10, 15-16, 21), an external mold (Figure 3,
#10), and an internal mold structure (Figure 3, #15), and the product simulating a steak (Figure
4).
Kawkins et al teach a process for preparing a restructured meat product (title) by providing a tool with plural cavities for different foods (Figure 1-2, #5, 7), a food product with plural internal sections (Figure 3), an injection pressure of 10-100 psi or 0.69-6.9 bar (column 2, line 30), and the process aligning the fibrous elements in the direction of extrusion (column 1, lines 45-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed
mold structures into the invention of Hernandez et al, in view of Noble and Kawkins et al, since all are directed to methods of making simulated steak, since Hernandez et al already included two different food components in a mold but simply did not mention the particulars of the mold structure, since food molds commonly included a shaping tool with plural cavities or mold structures for different food components (Figure 3, #10, 15-16, 21), an external mold (Figure 3, #10), an internal mold structure (Figure 3, #15), and the product simulating a steak (Figure 4) as shown by Noble, since shaping tools commonly included plural cavities for different foods (Figure 1-2, #5, 7) as shown by Kawkins et al, and since this mold structure would have provided a simple and efficient means for creating the molded steak simulation of Hernandez et al, in view of Noble and Kawkins et al, while still keeping the two food components in separate areas.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed injection pressure into the invention of Hernandez et al, in view of Noble and Kawkins et al, since all are directed to methods of making simulated steak, since Hernandez et al already included extrusion and injection molding but simply did not mention a pressure value, since extruder food molding systems commonly used an injection pressure of 10-100 psi or 0.69-6.9 bar (column 2, line 30) and the process aligning the fibrous elements in the direction of extrusion (column 1, lines 45-49) as shown by Kawkins et al, and since the claimed pressure would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of food material, the viscosity of the food material, and/or the desired texture of the final product of Hernandez et al, in view of Noble and Kawkins et al.
Claims 108, 110, 112, 117 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hernandez et al, in view of Noble and Kawkins et al, as applied above, and further in view of Axelrod [US 2007/0212456A1].
Hernandez et al, Kawakins et al, and Noble teach the above mentioned concepts. Hernandez et al do not explicitly recite an interior muscle die and an external fat die at the side faces (claim 108), plural spaced cavities for one food component and the second food component in the space between the cavities and an external perimeter (claim 110), injecting a food component into the space between the cavities and the external perimeter (claim 112), a powder heater extruder (claim 117).
Axelrod teaches a molded product simulating a steak (Figure 5, #10) wherein the
molded product uses edible materials (paragraph 0025, having two cavities holding a first
simulated meat material (Figure 5, #14a-b), a second simulated fat or bone material in the
space between the two cavities and an external perimeter (Figure 5, #12), and using wet or dry
extrusion (paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed mold structures and dry extrusion into the invention of Hernandez et al, in view of Kawkins et al, Noble, and Axelrod, since all are directed to methods of making simulated steak products, since Hernandez et al already included two food components in a mold but simply did not mention the particulars of the mold structure, since Hernandez et al also included an extrusion system for injecting material into the mold but simply did not mention a powder heater extruder, since steak molds commonly included a shaping tool with plural cavities or mold structures for different food components (Figure 3, #10, 15-16, 21), an external mold (Figure 3, #10), and an internal mold structure (Figure 3, #15), and the product simulating a steak (Figure 4) as shown by Noble, since steak mold systems also commonly included two cavities holding a first simulated meat material (Figure 5, #14a-b), a second simulated fat or bone material in the space between the two cavities and an external perimeter (Figure 5, #12), and using wet or dry extrusion (paragraph 0061) as shown by Axelrod, since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, and since a dry extrusion material would have been more easily stored in preparation for the system of Hernandez et al, in view of Axelrod, Kawkins et al, and Noble.
Claims 113-114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al, in view of Kawkins et al and Noble, as applied above, and further in view of Briggs [Pat. No. 3,392,685].
Hernandez et al, Kawkins et al, and Noble teach the above mentioned concepts. Hernandez et al do not explicitly recite plural input ports for same or different material (claim 113), perpendicular delivery (claim 114). Briggs teaches a food mold assembly with plural perpendicular delivery input ports for same or different material (Figure 1-5, #22-26, 39-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed input port structures into the invention of Hernandez et al, in view of Noble, Kawkins et al, and Briggs, since all are directed to food molding systems, since Hernandez et al already included plural nozzles for different materials to be molded (Figure 4) but simply did not describe the mold structure in detail, since mold systems commonly included plural mold cavities as shown by Noble, since mold systems also commonly included plural perpendicular delivery input ports for same or different material (Figure 1-5, #22-26, 39-43) as shown by Briggs, and since these port structures would have provided an easy and convenient means for directing the different mold materials of Hernandez et al into the various mold cavities of Noble.
Claim 115 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al, in view of Noble, Kawkins et al, and Briggs, as applied above, and further in view of Hice et al [Pat. No. 4,497,844].
Hernandez et al, Kawkins et al, Noble, and Briggs teach the above mentioned concepts. Shirai et al do not explicitly recite peripheral delivery (claim 115). Hice et al teach a method for producing restructured food products (title) comprising a mold structure with peripheral delivery of material (Figure 6, #54, 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed input port structures into the invention of Hernandez et al, in view of Noble, Hice et al, and Briggs, since all are directed to food molding systems, since Hernandez et al already included plural nozzles for different materials to be molded (Figure 4) but simply did not describe the mold structure in detail, since mold systems commonly included plural mold cavities as shown by Noble, since mold systems also commonly included plural perpendicular delivery input ports for same or different material (Figure 1-5, #22-26, 39-43) as shown by Briggs, since food mold systems further commonly included peripheral delivery of food material as shown by Hice et al, and since peripheral port structures would have provided an easy and convenient means for directing the different mold materials of Hernandez et al into the various mold cavities of Noble.
Claim 118 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al, in view of Noble, Kawkins et al, and Axelrod, as applied above, and further in view of Briggs.
Hernandez et al, Noble, and Axelrod teach the abovementioned concepts. Axelrod teaches a molded product simulating a steak (Figure 5, #10) wherein the molded product uses edible materials (paragraph 0025, having two cavities holding a first simulated meat material (Figure 5, #14a-b), a second simulated fat or bone material in the space between the two cavities and an external perimeter (Figure 5, #12).
Hernandez et al do not explicitly recite plural input ports for protein and fat components (claim 118).
Briggs teaches a food mold assembly with plural perpendicular delivery input ports for same or different material (Figure 1-5, #22-26, 39-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed input port structures into the invention of Hernandez et al, in view of Noble, Kawkins et al, Axelrod, and Briggs, since all are directed to food molding systems, since Hernandez et al already included plural nozzles for different materials to be molded (Figure 4) but simply did not describe the mold structure in detail, since mold systems commonly included plural mold cavities as shown by Noble, since mold systems also commonly included plural perpendicular delivery input ports for same or different material (Figure 1-5, #22-26, 39-43) as shown by Briggs, and since these port structures would have provided an easy and convenient means for directing the different mold materials of Hernandez et al into the various mold cavities of Noble.
Claim 116, 127 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al, in view of Noble and Kawkins et al, as applied above, and further in view of Shirai et al [US 4,216,240].
Hernandez et al, Noble and Kawkins et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Hernandez et al also disclosed an embodiment with two extruders which inject food componnets into a mold structure (Figure 4, #100, 200, 300), another embodiment including a first extruder station for injecting food component into a mold (Figure 6, #100, 300) and a second extruder station for injecting food components into a mold (Figure 6, #200, 400). Kawkins et al also teach the process aligning the fibrous elements in the direction of extrusion (column 1, lines 45-49). Hernandez et al do not explicitly recite a moisture content of at least 40% and temperature of at least 100C (claim 116, 127). Shirai et al teach a method for injection molding meat products by use of a protein material with a moisture content of 20-80% (column 3, line 33) and a temperature of 20-300C (column 4, line 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed moisture and temperature levels into the invention of Hernandez et al, in view of Noble, Shirai et al, and Kawkins et al; since all are directed to methods of making simulated steak, since Hernandez et al already included a protein component, since injection moulding systems commonly used a moisture content of 20-80% (column 3, line 33) and a temperature of 20-300C (column 4, line 25), and since the claimed moisture and temperature levels would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the form of the desired end product, the types of ingredients used, and/or the desired degree of preservability to be achieved in the system of Hernandez et al, in view of Shirai et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Shirai et al did not disclose the claimed pressure of amended claim 107. However, the new rejection relies upon Hernandez et al, in view of Kawkins et al, to teach his concept.
Regarding claim 124, applicant argues against the combination of Shirai et al, in view of Noble. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed
mold structures into the invention of Shirai et al, in view of Noble, since both are directed to
methods of making simulated steak, since Shirai et al already included protein and fat portions
in a mold but simply did not mention the particulars of the mold structure, since food molds
commonly included a shaping tool with plural cavities or mold structures for different food
components (Figure 3, #10, 15-16, 21), an external mold (Figure 3, #10), and an internal mold
structure (Figure 3, #15), and the product simulating a steak (Figure 4) as shown by Noble, and
since this mold structure would have provided a simple and efficient means for creating the
molded steak simulation of Shirai et al, in view of Noble.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant has failed to argue or provide evidence of unexpected/unpredicted results with regard to the claimed method.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dos Santos teaches meat mold with plural internal sections receiving injections of different food components (Figure 3), Weatherspoon teaches a meat product with a fat section on its external perimeter (Figure 1), Huttenbauer teaches a method for injection molding of meat products using a pressure of 20 psi (Examples 3-4), Dhuyvetter teaches a method for injection molding an edible block an internal mold section and external perimeter mold section (Figure 1B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights