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Claims 119-123, 125-126 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Claims 109, 116, 118, 124 are 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 109 recites “high or low” moisture extrusion. It is not clear what levels or amounts of moisture would be considered “high or low”.
Claim 116 recites a “high-moisture extruder”. It is not clear what levels or amounts of moisture would be considered “high”.
Claim 118 recites the limitation "the meat-like boneless product". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to contradict the “bone cement’ limitation.
Claim 124 recites “its internal perimeter”. It is not clear what “it” is.
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.
Claims 107, 109, 111, 116, 124 are 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 plural cavities with different foods (claim 107), two mold structures (claim 111), 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.
Regarding the shape of the product, MPEP 2144.04 explains:
I. AESTHETIC DESIGN CHANGES
In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.). But see Ex parte Hilton, 148 USPQ 356 (Bd. App. 1965) (Claims were directed to fried potato chips with a specified moisture and fat content, whereas the prior art was directed to french fries having a higher moisture content. While recognizing that in some cases the particular shape of a product is of no patentable significance, the Board held in this case the shape (chips) is important because it results in a product which is distinct from the reference product (french fries).).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
B. Changes in Shape
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 108, 110, 112, 117 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al, in view of Noble, as applied above, and further in view of Axelrod [US 2007/0212456A1].
Shirai et al and Noble teach the above mentioned concepts. Shirai 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 Shirai et al, Noble and Axelrod, since all are directed to methods of making simulated steak products, since Shirai et al already included protein and fat materials in a mold but simply did not mention the particulars of the mold structure, since Shirai 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 Shirai et al, in view of Axelrod and Noble.
Regarding the shape of the product, MPEP 2144.04 explains:
I. AESTHETIC DESIGN CHANGES
In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.). But see Ex parte Hilton, 148 USPQ 356 (Bd. App. 1965) (Claims were directed to fried potato chips with a specified moisture and fat content, whereas the prior art was directed to french fries having a higher moisture content. While recognizing that in some cases the particular shape of a product is of no patentable significance, the Board held in this case the shape (chips) is important because it results in a product which is distinct from the reference product (french fries).).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
B. Changes in Shape
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 113-114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al, in view of Noble, as applied above, and further in view of Briggs [Pat. No. 3,392,685].
Shirai et al and Noble teach the above mentioned concepts. Shirai 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 Shirai et al, in view of Noble and Briggs, since all are directed to food molding systems, since Shirai et al already included plural nozzles for different materials to be molded (column 6, line 2) 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 Shirai et al into the various mold cavities of Noble.
Claim 115 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al, in view of Noble and Briggs, as applied above, and further in view of Hice et al [Pat. No. 4,497,844].
Shirai 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 Shirai et al, in view of Noble, Hice et al, and Briggs, since all are directed to food molding systems, since Shirai et al already included plural nozzles for different materials to be molded (column 6, line 2) 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 Shirai et al into the various mold cavities of Noble.
Claim 118 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al, in view of Noble and Axelrod, as applied above, and further in view of Briggs.
Shirai et al, Noble, and Axelrod teach the abovementioned concepts. Shirai et al also disclosed 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), and a third material simulating bone (column 6, line 6). 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).
Shirai et al do not explicitly recite plural input ports for the 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 Shirai et al, in view of Noble and Briggs, since all are directed to food molding systems, since Shirai et al already included plural nozzles for different materials to be molded (column 6, line 2) 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 Shirai et al into the various mold cavities of Noble.
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