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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-13, and 16-18 remain pending in the application.
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 claim 18 of 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 limitation(s) is/are: “mixture providing unit configured to provide a mixture of a starch powder, water and a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light, wherein the mixture providing unit is configured to disperse the starch powder in the water to provide the mixture in the form of a suspension”, “mixture receiving unit configured to receive the mixture from the mixture providing unit”, “relative position control unit configured to control a relative position between the mixture receiving unit and the laser module so as to allow the mixture in the mixture receiving unit to be irradiated with the laser light at given positions of the mixture, according to a pattern predetermined based on a three-dimensional shape of a food”, and “irradiation control unit configured to allow the mixture to be irradiated with the laser light under a given irradiation condition, according to the pattern predetermined based on the three-dimensional shape of the food” in claim 18.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noort (US 20170266881 A1) in view of Lamikanra (US 20130052313 A1), Blutinger (US 20190110505 A1), Slemmer (AU 653869 B2), Parker (US 20150158911 A1), Lamelas et al. (Optical absorption, scattering, and multiple scattering: Experimental measurements using food coloring, India ink, and milk), Gracia (US 20170245682 A1), and Anderson (US 3446708 A).
Regarding claim 1, Noort teaches (Claims 1, 2, 6, 9) a method for producing an edible object comprising providing an edible powder composition, providing an edible liquid on the edible powder composition, and subjecting the edible powder composition to a laser irradiation step of selective laser sintering, wherein the edible liquid may comprise water and the edible powder composition may comprise a structural component that may be starch. Noort further teaches (Paragraph 0008) the application of water to biopolymers such as starch before subjecting these to laser treatment causes (at least partial) gelation thereof. Also, Noort teaches (Paragraph 0007) the edible object is consolidated into a pre-defined three dimensional shape. In addition, Nort teaches (Paragraphs 0032, 0044-0045) an exemplary embodiment wherein water is applied to edible compositions, and, after subjecting to laser treatment, the printed object is removed using a flat scoop and the remaining powder is removed with a brush (extraction from the mixture).
Noort does not explicitly state that the starch particles of the starch powder to swell due to the water to form swollen starch particles, followed by causing the swollen starch particles to gelatinize to form gelatinized starch particles, and causing the gelatinized starch particles to gelate.
However, it is known in the art, for example, from Lamikanra (Paragraph 0073) that, when granules of starch are heated, they will swell upon absorption of moisture (water) from the surrounding environment, and convert to a random arrangement of amylose and amylopectin molecules in a process of gelatinization, and, upon cooling, water (or other liquid) molecules are trapped in a network as the gel forms, which is referred to as "gelation". Therefore, since Noort teaches that the laser treatment after the application of water causes gelation, and it is known from Lamikanra that gelation occurs upon cooling after heating with moisture to cause swelling and then gelation, the claimed process of swelling due to water, gelatinization, and then gelation would likely, if not necessarily occur in the process of Noort. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the laser treatment to induce swelling, gelatinization, and gelation so that the gelated starch particles would adhere together and would maintain the desire shape upon removal and transportation or subsequent processing.
Noort is silent on the mixture comprising a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light. Noort is further silent on irradiating the mixture with the laser light, according to a pattern predetermined based on a three-dimensional shape of a food. Also, Noort is silent on the step of mixing including a step of dispersing the starch powder in the water to provide the mixture in the form of a suspension. Furthermore, Noort is silent on the laser light source configured to emit the laser light being a visible-light laser.
Blutinger teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0017) food preparation, and in particular, the use of laser radiation for cooking, wherein a first laser emits visible light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort to use a visible light laser as taught by Blutinger since both are directed to methods of treating food products with lasers, since using a visible light laser to treat a food product is known in the art as shown by Blutinger, since the short-wavelength (visible light) laser is particularly useful because any water present in the edible structure is essentially transparent at this wavelength, which means that the short-wavelength laser is able to more evenly cook the food (Blutinger, Paragraph 0048), since a visible light laser will be visible where it contacts the food, allowing operators to determine that the laser is operating and targeting the desired location, and since some mixtures will be better suited to treatment with visible light depending on the type of starch, amount of water, desired texture, etc.
Slemmer teaches (Page 2, lines 25-28; Page 3, lines 32-33; Page 4, lines 12-14) a thermostable colored coating material comprising a coloring agent (pigment) in a thermostable matrix based on an at least partially gelatinized starch material, wherein the starch may be subjected to gelatinization in presence of the coloring agent, and wherein both the coloring agent (pigment) and the thermostable matrix based on starch material are ingestible materials (edible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort, as modified above, to include a coloring agent (pigment) in the mixture as taught by Slemmer since both are directed to methods of preparing gelatinized starch products, since gelatinized starch products including a pigment are known in the art as shown by Slemmer, since a pigment can provide coloration that will make the food product more desirable to consumers, since an edible pigment allows the starch product to be consumed safely, and since a pigment can be used for decorative purposes for making a food product with a particular design or theme.
Parker teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0049, 0079) pigment structures including a light absorbing material, wherein the pigments may be used in food products, and wherein the pigment absorbs visible light.
Lamelas et al. teaches (Page 137) a series of optical experiments is used to illustrate color effects, absorption, and scattering, wherein, the intensity of red laser light (visible laser light) is measured after the beam passes through samples with increasing concentrations of food dyes, black ink, and milk. Lamelas et al. further teaches (Page 139) the colored dyes show a qualitative but pronounced effect, namely, the red laser light is hardly absorbed by the red and yellow dyes after the addition of ten drops, but is very strongly absorbed after the addition of only one drop of the blue and green dyes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort, as modified above, to use a pigment that exhibits absorption as at a wavelength of visible laser light in view of Parker and Lamelas et al., since the use of pigment in the preparation of gelatinized starch mixtures is known in the art from Slemmer, since pigments for food products that exhibit absorption of visible laser light are known in the art as shown by Parker and Lamelas et al., since absorption of visible laser light by the pigment can assist in the process of swelling, gelatinization, and gelation by enabling the transfer of heat/energy from a visible light laser to the starch mixture (where the use of such visible light lasers is known in the art as shown by Blutinger), and since pigments that don’t absorb the wavelength of the laser light can hinder the process of swelling, gelatinization, and gelation.
Gracia teaches (Paragraph 0004, 0067) cooking a food product using laser beams, wherein the laser deflection pattern for cooking is determined based on the shape of the food product being warmed and cooked acquired from a 3D scanner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort to irradiate the mixture with the laser light, according to a pattern predetermined based on a three-dimensional shape of a food in view of Gracia, since both are directed to methods of treating three-dimensional food products with laser light, since irradiating a food with the laser light, according to a pattern predetermined based on a three-dimensional shape of a food is known in the art as shown by Gracia, since controlling the pattern of the laser based on the shape will ensure that the laser targets the entirety of the food product and avoids missing a section and leaving it not gelated, since controlling the pattern of the laser based on the shape of food will allow the laser to only be used on the food rather than targeting a non-food area, wasting time and energy, and since irradiating the mixture based on the shape of the food will ensure that the laser gelates a food with the desired shape and that no sections or segments of starch that don’t match the shape are attached to the finished food.
Anderson teaches (Col. 4, lines 46-51) gelatinized starch is readily produced by conventional methods, such as dispersing the starch in water and heating the slurry (suspension) for sufficient time to effect gelatinization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort, as modified above, to disperse the starch powder in water as taught by Anderson, since both are directed to methods of gelatinizing starch and water mixtures, since dispersing a starch powder in water is known in the art as shown by Anderson, since dispersing the starch powder in water will ensure that all starch particulates are in contact with water and receive sufficient moisture to swell and gelatinize, and since dispersing the starch in water will allow the starch to be evenly distributed so that the resultant food product has a consistent texture.
Regarding claim 2, Noort teaches (Paragraph 0005, 0011) preparing an edible object from an edible powder composition and an edible liquid, wherein the edible liquid may be 5-80 wt. % relative to the total weight of the powder composition and the liquid, and in some embodiments, up to 60 wt. % liquid/40 wt. % solid. Also, Noort teaches (Paragraph 0014) the edible powder composition may comprise a structural component, comprising starch in a preferred embodiment, wherein, in some embodiments, the edible composition essentially consists of the structural component. Thus, Noort discloses embodiments comprising 40% or more solid, and embodiments where the solid component is entirely a structural component, which may be starch, putting the starch content overlapping with the claimed range of 20% to 80% by mass.
Furthermore, the claimed starch powder concentration of 20% by mass to 80% by mass would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Noort, as modified above, based upon factors such as the desired structural and texture properties of the food product, the intended treatment time (where more water will require longer irradiation), the amount of other ingredients, the power of the laser, the type of starch, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed starch powder concentration of 20% by mass to 80% by mass that would render it non-obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Noort teaches (Paragraph 0005, 0011) preparing an edible object from an edible powder composition and an edible liquid, wherein the edible liquid may be 5-80 wt. % relative to the total weight of the powder composition and the liquid, and in some embodiments, up to 60 wt. % liquid/40 wt. % solid. Also, Noort teaches (Paragraph 0014) the edible powder composition may comprise a structural component, comprising starch in a preferred embodiment, wherein, in some embodiments, the edible composition essentially consists of the structural component. Thus, Noort discloses embodiments comprising 40% or more solid, and embodiments where the solid component is entirely a structural component, which may be starch, putting the starch content encompassing the claimed range of 40% to 60% by mass.
Furthermore, the claimed starch powder concentration of 40% by mass to 60% by mass would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Noort, as modified above, based upon factors such as the desired structural and texture properties of the food product, the intended treatment time (where more water will require longer irradiation), the amount of other ingredients, the power of the laser, the type of starch, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed starch powder concentration of 40% by mass to 60% by mass that would render it non-obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Noort is silent on the pigment being an edible pigment.
As shown above, Slemmer teaches (Page 2, lines 25-28; Page 3, lines 32-33; Page 4, lines 12-14) a thermostable colored coating material comprising a coloring agent (pigment) in a thermostable matrix based on an at least partially gelatinized starch material, wherein the starch may be subjected to gelatinization in presence of the coloring agent, and wherein both the coloring agent (pigment) and the thermostable matrix based on starch material are ingestible materials (edible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort, as modified above, to include an edible coloring agent (pigment) in the mixture as taught by Slemmer since both are directed to methods of preparing gelatinized starch products, since gelatinized starch products including an edible pigment are known in the art as shown by Slemmer, since a pigment can provide coloration that will make the food product more desirable to consumers, since an edible pigment allows the starch product to be consumed safely, and since an edible pigment can be used for decorative purposes for making a food product with a particular design or theme.
Regarding claim 10, Noort teaches (0032) an exemplary embodiment wherein edible compositions are treated with a 50W CO2 CW laser (@100% power), wherein the laser power is 50-80% (25-40 W).
It is noted that the laser disclosed in the exemplary embodiment of Noort is an infrared laser.
However, as shown above, the use of visible light lasers is known in the art and obvious in view of Blutinger. Additionally, Blutinger teaches (Paragraph 0044) treating food with a 445-nm (visible light) laser with output wattage between 3 and 4 watts (which falls within the claimed range of 1 to 100 W).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a visible light laser with an output power of 1 W to 100 W as taught by Blutinger for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1, and since Blutinger discloses (Paragraph 0044) that an output power between 1 W and 100 W is suitable for treating food, where selection of a known parameter range based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2144.07), and an output power between 1 W and 100 W is a known suitable power output for a visible laser light treatment of food as demonstrated above by Blutinger.
Regarding claim 12, Noort teaches (Paragraph 0001-0003) a method for the production of edible objects using selective laser sintering, wherein, during selective laser sintering, a laser selectively fuses powdered material by scanning cross-sections on the surface of a powder bed.
Noort is silent on scanning according to a predetermined pattern.
As shown above, Gracia teaches (Paragraph 0004, 0067) cooking a food product using laser beams, wherein the laser deflection pattern for cooking is determined based on the shape of the food product being warmed and cooked acquired from a 3D scanner. Gracia further teaches (Paragraph 0073) moving the laser beam (scanning) following the laser deflection pattern, in order to cook the food product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort to scan the laser light according to the predetermined pattern in view of Gracia, since both are directed to methods of treating three-dimensional food products with laser light, scanning the laser light according to the predetermined pattern is known in the art as shown by Gracia, since controlling the scanning of the laser based on the shape will ensure that the laser targets the entirety of the food product and avoids missing a section and leaving it not gelated, since controlling the scanning of the laser based on the shape of food will allow the laser to only be used on the food rather than targeting a non-food area, wasting time and energy, and since scanning the mixture based on the shape of the food will ensure that the laser gelates a food with the desired shape and that no sections or segments of starch that don’t match the shape are attached to the finished food.
Regarding claim 17, Noort teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0005) subjecting an edible powder composition to selective laser sintering, wherein after each cross-section is scanned with the laser, the powder bed is lowered by one layer thickness, a new layer of material is applied on top, and the process is repeated until the shape is completed. Also, Noort teaches (Paragraph 0039-0044) an exemplary embodiment wherein, after treatment with the laser, the z-stage is lowered, a new powder layer and water are applied, and laser is applied again.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noort (US 20170266881 A1) in view of Lamikanra (US 20130052313 A1), Blutinger (US 20190110505 A1), Slemmer (AU 653869 B2), Parker (US 20150158911 A1), Lamelas et al. (Optical absorption, scattering, and multiple scattering: Experimental measurements using food coloring, India ink, and milk), Gracia (US 20170245682 A1), and Anderson (US 3446708 A), and further in view of Tang (CN 111388442 A) and Zwicker (US 20100047395 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Noort, as modified above, is silent on the pigment being contained in the mixture at a concentration of 0.001% by mass to 0.5% by mass.
However, starch food products containing pigment in the claimed range are known in the art.
For example, Tang teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0030, 0032) a gel candy type plant soft capsule, wherein, in some embodiments, the gel candy type plant soft capsule comprises ingredients including starch, water, and 0.25% pigment.
Also, Zwicker teaches (Paragraph 0005, 0013, 0038) a composition comprising one or more starches, an amount of liquid and an encapsulating agent, wherein one or more embodiments of the invention can also include a coloring agent, which can make up, for example, from 0.01-5.0% of the composition.
Furthermore, the claimed pigment concentration of 0.001% by mass to 0.5% by mass would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Noort, as modified above, based upon factors such as the desired shade or intensity of color (where more pigment will increase the effect of coloration), the effect of the pigment on the taste or texture of the food product, the type of starch (where different starches have different colors that will be affected by the pigment more or less), the type of pigment, the conditions of the laser treatment, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed pigment concentration of 0.001% by mass to 0.5% by mass that would render it non-obvious.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noort (US 20170266881 A1) in view of Lamikanra (US 20130052313 A1), Blutinger (US 20190110505 A1), Slemmer (AU 653869 B2), Parker (US 20150158911 A1), Lamelas et al. (Optical absorption, scattering, and multiple scattering: Experimental measurements using food coloring, India ink, and milk), Gracia (US 20170245682 A1), and Anderson (US 3446708 A), and further in view of Diaz (US 20160100621 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Noort, as modified above, is silent on the laser light having a spot diameter of 0.01 mm to 1 mm.
However, lasers for treating starch food products with spot diameters in the claimed range are known in the art.
For example, Diaz teaches (Paragraph 0013, 0018) production of 3D edible objects achieved by using a powder composition comprising structural elements using a laser, wherein the structural component may be starch, and wherein, in exemplary embodiments, the laser procedure was performed with a carbon dioxide laser with a laser spot diameter of 0.6 mm. Consequently, providing a spot diameter in the range of 0.01 mm to 1 mm for a laser light for treating a food product would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2144.07), and a spot diameter in the range of 0.01 mm to 1 mm is known for laser lights for treating food products as demonstrated above by Diaz.
Furthermore, the claimed spot diameter of 0.01 mm to 1 mm would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Noort, as modified above, based upon factors such as the size of the food object (where a smaller spot diameter would be needed for a smaller food product), the shape and complexity of the food product, the time available for food production (where a smaller diameter will take longer to cover the area of the food), the distance of the laser from the food, the desired amount of gelatinization, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed spot diameter of 0.01 mm to 1 mm that would render it non-obvious.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noort (US 20170266881 A1) in view of Lamikanra (US 20130052313 A1), Blutinger (US 20190110505 A1), Slemmer (AU 653869 B2), Parker (US 20150158911 A1), Lamelas et al. (Optical absorption, scattering, and multiple scattering: Experimental measurements using food coloring, India ink, and milk), Gracia (US 20170245682 A1), and Anderson (US 3446708 A), and further in view of Cuny (US 20160249647 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Noort, as modified above, is silent on the scanning being performed at a rate of 0.5 mm/s to 10 mm/s.
However, lasers for treating food products at speeds overlapping with the claimed range are known in the art.
For example, Cuny teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0019) a method for engraving a pattern on a hamburger bread or buns, wherein the displacement speed of the laser beam on the surface of the bread is preferably between 10 and 18,000 millimeters per second. Consequently, providing a scanning rate in the range of 0.5 mm/s to 10 mm/s for a laser light for treating a food product would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2144.07), and a scanning rate in the range of 0.5 mm/s to 10 mm/s is known for laser lights for treating food products as demonstrated above by Cuny.
Furthermore, the claimed scanning rate of 0.5 mm/s to 10 mm/s would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Noort, as modified above, based upon factors such as the intended thickness of the food product (where a slower speed would be necessary for the laser energy to penetrate a thicker food product), the size of the food, the power of the laser (where a more powerful laser would move faster to avoid overheating or burning the food), the type and amount of starch, the amount of water, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed scanning rate of 0.5 mm/s to 10 mm/s that would render it non-obvious.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noort (US 20170266881 A1) in view of Lamikanra (US 20130052313 A1), Blutinger (US 20190110505 A1), Slemmer (AU 653869 B2), Parker (US 20150158911 A1), Lamelas et al. (Optical absorption, scattering, and multiple scattering: Experimental measurements using food coloring, India ink, and milk), Gracia (US 20170245682 A1), and Anderson (US 3446708 A), and further in view of Park (US 20120132197 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Noort teaches (Paragraphs 0032, 0044-0045) an exemplary embodiment wherein water is applied to edible compositions, and, after subjecting to laser treatment, the printed object is removed using a flat scoop and the remaining powder is removed with a brush (extraction from the mixture).
Noort, as modified above, is silent on the step of extracting including a step of applying water to the remaining part of the mixture which has not been irradiated with the laser light, thereby removing the remaining part.
Park teaches (Paragraph 0009, 0026-0027) a method for preparing fibrous starch with enhanced emulsifying capacity, wherein, after heat treating the starch at a temperature higher than the gelatinization temperature, the starch is washed with water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Noort, as modified above, to include a step of applying water to the remaining part of the mixture which has not been irradiated with the laser light, thereby removing the remaining part (e.g. as a substitute or in addition to brushing) in view of Park since both are directed to methods of preparing gelatinized starches, since removing the remaining part after laser treatment is known in the art as shown by Noort, since washing a starch sample with water after gelatinization is known in the art as shown by Park, since water is capable of removing particulate matter thoroughly, thus ensuring that not ungelatinized starch remains on the food product, and since water will not damage the starch or alter its texture or flavor.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noort (US 20170266881 A1) in view of Lamikanra (US 20130052313 A1), Blutinger (US 20190110505 A1), Shoseyov (US 20180192686 A1), Slemmer (AU 653869 B2), Parker (US 20150158911 A1), Lamelas et al. (Optical absorption, scattering, and multiple scattering: Experimental measurements using food coloring, India ink, and milk), Anderson (US 3446708 A) and Gracia (US 20170245682 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Noort teaches (Claims 1, 2, 6, 9) a method for operating an apparatus comprising a laser for producing an edible object comprising providing an edible powder composition, providing an edible liquid on the edible powder composition, and subjecting the edible powder composition to a laser irradiation step of selective laser sintering, wherein the edible liquid may comprise water and the edible powder composition may comprise a structural component that may be starch. Noort further teaches (Paragraph 0008) the application of water to biopolymers such as starch before subjecting these to laser treatment causes (at least partial) gelation thereof. Also, Noort teaches (Paragraph 0007) the edible object is consolidated into a pre-defined three dimensional shape. In addition, Nort teaches (Paragraph 0032- 0039) an exemplary embodiment, comprising a 50 W CO2 laser, with power than can be modulated based on the pattern to be printed and a z-stage (mixture receiving unit) to which powder and liquid are added prior to treatment with the laser. While not explicitly described, a laser with power that can be modulated necessarily comprises irradiation control unit configured to allow the mixture to be irradiated with the laser light under a given irradiation condition.
Noort does not explicitly state that the starch particles of the starch powder to swell due to the water to form swollen starch particles, followed by causing the swollen starch particles to gelatinize to form gelatinized starch particles, and causing the gelatinized starch particles to gelate.
However, it is known in the art, for example, from Lamikanra (Paragraph 0073) that, when granules of starch are heated, they will swell upon absorption of moisture (water) from the surrounding environment, and convert to a random arrangement of amylose and amylopectin molecules in a process of gelatinization, and, upon cooling, water (or other liquid) molecules are trapped in a network as the gel forms, which is referred to as "gelation". Therefore, since Noort teaches that the laser treatment after the application of water causes gelation, and it is known from Lamikanra that gelation occurs upon cooling after heating with moisture to cause swelling and then gelation, the claimed process of swelling due to water, gelatinization, and then gelation would likely, if not necessarily occur in the process of Noort. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the laser treatment to induce swelling, gelatinization, and gelation so that the gelated starch particles would adhere together and would maintain the desire shape upon removal and transportation or subsequent processing.
Noort is silent on the apparatus comprising a mixture providing unit configured to provide a mixture of a starch powder, water and a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light, wherein the mixture providing unit is configured to disperse the starch powder in the water to provide the mixture in the form of a suspension. Also, Nort is silent on the laser light source configured to emit the laser light being a visible-light laser. Noort is further silent on the apparatus comprising relative position control unit configured to control a relative position between the mixture receiving unit and the laser module so as to allow the mixture in the mixture receiving unit to be irradiated with the laser light at given positions of the mixture, according to a pattern predetermined based on a three-dimensional shape of a food.
Blutinger teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0017) an apparatus for food preparation, comprising a laser for cooking, wherein a first laser emits visible light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort to include a visible light laser as taught by Blutinger since both are directed to apparatuses for treating food products with lasers, since a visible light laser for treating a food product is known in the art as shown by Blutinger, since the short-wavelength (visible light) laser is particularly useful because any water present in the edible structure is essentially transparent at this wavelength, which means that the short-wavelength laser is able to more evenly cook the food (Blutinger, Paragraph 0048), since a visible light laser will be visible where it contacts the food, allowing operators to determine that the laser is operating and targeting the desired location, and since some mixtures will be better suited to treatment with visible light depending on the type of starch, amount of water, desired texture, etc.
Shoseyov teaches (Paragraph 0095, 0096, 0134, 0135, 0139; Fig. 1 #112, 113, 116) a 3D food assembler comprising a focused IR light and/or a UV light source (112, 113) fixed to an extrusion stage and a deposition tray (116, receiving unit), wherein the UV source and IR source may be lasers, and wherein, in some embodiments, the composition comprises one or more ingredients that may be premixed in the nozzle (mixture providing means), which may comprise, for example multiple inlets, a mixing channel, and one or more outlets for extrusion on a surface of the deposition tray (receiving means).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort, as modified above to provide a mixture providing unit configured to provide a mixture of a starch powder and water in view of Shoseyov since both are directed to apparatuses for treating food items with lasers, since mixing starch powder and water prior to irradiation is known in the art from Noort, since a mixture providing unit for components of a food product to be treated with a laser is known in the art as shown by Shoseyov, since a mixture providing unit can allow additional mixture to be added when needed without having to first combine the starch and water, since a mixture providing unit can ensure that the mixture is not exposed to contaminants prior to irradiation by keeping the mixture enclosed, and since a mixture providing unit can reduce manual labor by providing the mixture without the need for the user to do so manually.
It is noted that Shoseyov does not explicitly refer to the mixture including a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light. However, inclusion of such a pigment would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Slemmer teaches (Page 2, lines 25-28; Page 3, lines 32-33; Page 4, lines 12-14) a thermostable colored coating material comprising a coloring agent (pigment) in a thermostable matrix based on an at least partially gelatinized starch material, wherein the starch may be subjected to gelatinization in presence of the coloring agent, and wherein both the coloring agent (pigment) and the thermostable matrix based on starch material are ingestible materials (edible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort, as modified above, to include a coloring agent (pigment) in the mixture as taught by Slemmer since both are directed to methods of preparing gelatinized starch products, since gelatinized starch products including a pigment are known in the art as shown by Slemmer, since a pigment can provide coloration that will make the food product more desirable to consumers, since an edible pigment allows the starch product to be consumed safely, and since a pigment can be used for decorative purposes for making a food product with a particular design or theme.
Parker teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0049, 0079) pigment structures including a light absorbing material, wherein the pigments may be used in food products, and wherein the pigment absorbs visible light.
Lamelas et al. teaches (Page 137) a series of optical experiments is used to illustrate color effects, absorption, and scattering, wherein, the intensity of red laser light (visible laser light) is measured after the beam passes through samples with increasing concentrations of food dyes, black ink, and milk. Lamelas et al. further teaches (Page 139) the colored dyes show a qualitative but pronounced effect, namely, the red laser light is hardly absorbed by the red and yellow dyes after the addition of ten drops, but is very strongly absorbed after the addition of only one drop of the blue and green dyes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort, as modified above, to use a pigment that exhibits absorption as at a wavelength of visible laser light in view of Parker and Lamelas et al., since the use of pigment in the preparation of gelatinized starch mixtures is known in the art from Slemmer, since pigments for food products that exhibit absorption of visible laser light are known in the art as shown by Parker and Lamelas et al., since absorption of visible laser light by the pigment can assist in the process of swelling, gelatinization, and gelation by enabling the transfer of heat/energy from a visible light laser to the starch mixture (where the use of such visible light lasers is known in the art as shown by Blutinger), and since pigments that don’t absorb the wavelength of the laser light can hinder the process of swelling, gelatinization, and gelation.
It is further noted that Shoseyov does not explicitly refer to dispersing the starch powder in the water to provide the mixture in the form of a suspension. However, dispersing the starch powder in the water to provide the mixture in the form of a suspension would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Anderson, as demonstrated below.
Anderson teaches (Col. 4, lines 46-51) gelatinized starch is readily produced by conventional methods, such as dispersing the starch in water and heating the slurry (suspension) for sufficient time to effect gelatinization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort, as modified above, to disperse the starch powder in water as taught by Anderson, since both are directed to methods of gelatinizing starch and water mixtures, since dispersing a starch powder in water is known in the art as shown by Anderson, since dispersing the starch powder in water will ensure that all starch particulates are in contact with water and receive sufficient moisture to swell and gelatinize, and since dispersing the starch in water will allow the starch to be evenly distributed so that the resultant food product has a consistent texture.
Thus, Shoseyov discloses a mixture providing unit configured to mix together ingredients for subsequent treatment by a laser, and the inclusion of starch, water, and a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light, wherein the starch is dispersed in the water as a suspension is known and/or obvious in view of the prior art as shown above. Consequently, the claimed mixture providing unit would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above.
Gracia teaches (Paragraph 0004, 0067) an apparatus for cooking a food product using laser beams, wherein the laser deflection pattern for cooking is determined based on the shape of the food product being warmed and cooked acquired from a 3D scanner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort to configure the apparatus to irradiate the mixture with the laser light, according to a pattern predetermined based on a three-dimensional shape of a food in view of Gracia, since both are directed to apparatuses for treating three-dimensional food products with laser light, since an apparatus configured to irradiate a food with the laser light, according to a pattern predetermined based on a three-dimensional shape of a food is known in the art as shown by Gracia, since controlling the pattern of the laser based on the shape will ensure that the laser targets the entirety of the food product and avoids missing a section and leaving it not gelated, since controlling the pattern of the laser based on the shape of food will allow the laser to only be used on the food rather than targeting a non-food area, wasting time and energy, and since irradiating the mixture based on the shape of the food will ensure that the laser gelates a food with the desired shape and that no sections or segments of starch that don’t match the shape are attached to the finished food.
Shoseyov teaches (Paragraph 0127, 0134, 0135, 0139; Fig. 1 #112, 113, 116) a 3D food assembler comprising a focused IR light and/or a UV light source (112, 113) fixed to an extrusion stage and a deposition tray (116, receiving means), wherein the UV source and IR source may be lasers, and wherein during the extrusion the nozzle or the deposition tray may be moved in all directions by a motorized system controlled by a computer software (relative position control unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noort, as modified above to provide a relative position control unit to control a relative position between the mixture receiving unit and the laser module so as to allow the mixture in the mixture receiving unit to be irradiated with the laser light at given positions of the mixture in view of Shoseyov since both are directed to apparatuses for treating food items with lasers, since a relative position control unit for controlling the relative position between the mixture receiving means and the laser module is known in the art as shown by Shoseyov, since adjusting the relative position of the receiving unit and the laser module would allow the entirety the desired area of the food product to be treated with the laser, since the food product could be placed closer or farther from the laser module to control the intensity of the light being delivered to the mixture, and since the food could be lowered automatically for deposition of another material layer without manual user intervention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 regarding the interpretation of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that removal of the term “means” avoids interpretation of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the Examiner notes, as stated above, that 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. The language, “unit configured to” constitutes a generic placeholder, and the Examiner notes that MPEP 2181(A) explicitly identifies “unit for” as a generic placeholder that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). If the Applicant intends to avoid interpretation of the claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the Examiner advises the Applicant to consult MPEP 2181 for guidance as to how to overcome or rebut this presumption.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the arguments are made in view of amendments to the claims, and, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Noort (US 20170266881 A1) in view of Lamikanra (US 20130052313 A1), Blutinger (US 20190110505 A1), Slemmer (AU 653869 B2), Parker (US 20150158911 A1), Lamelas et al. (Optical absorption, scattering, and multiple scattering: Experimental measurements using food coloring, India ink, and milk), Gracia (US 20170245682 A1), and Anderson (US 3446708 A), as shown above.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that even if Anderson mentions that gelatinized starch may be produced by dispersing the starch in water (column 4, lines 46-51), one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Noort to disperse the starch powder in the water to provide the mixture in the form of a suspension, since independent claim 1 of Noort recites that "the edible liquid is provided in the form of droplets on the edible powder composition before subjecting it to the laser irradiation step of the SLS procedure” and Noort teaches using only a very small amount of droplets, e.g., less than 0.1 mL, the Examiner maintains that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Noort to disperse the starch powder in the water to provide the mixture in the form of a suspension in view of Anderson. The process of Noort comprises mixing of starch and water prior to treatment with a laser. While disclosed embodiments of Noort teach spraying the starch with water, Noort does not indicate any adverse effects from the addition of starch to water instead, nor has the Applicant identified any particular or unique effect resulting from dispersing the starch in water as opposed to spraying the water onto the starch. Regarding the amount of water, the Examiner notes that the amount cited by the Applicant is merely one embodiment of Noort that is not strictly required. Moreover, the Applicant’s claims do not require a particular amount of water, and it is unclear why a specific amount of water would affect the process when, for example, the embodiment of claim 4 of Noort cited by the Applicant does not also require a specific amount of starch or a particular ratio of starch to water.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that Slemmer fails to disclose a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light, that Slemmer does not disclose irradiating the coating material comprising the coloring agent, and that Parker and Lamelas would not have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the motivation to add a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light in the starch powder-water mixture, and then irradiating a part of the mixture to swell, gelatinize and gelate the starch, the Examiner notes that 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 this case, Noort teaches a method of gelatinizing starch using a laser, Slemmer teaches gelatinization of starch and edible pigment, and Parker and Lamelas teach edible pigments for use with food products that absorb visible laser light. One of ordinary skill in the art, in consideration of the prior art would find it obvious to include a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1, including that a pigment can provide coloration that will make the food product more desirable to consumers, that an edible pigment allows the starch product to be consumed safely, that a pigment can be used for decorative purposes for making a food product with a particular design or theme, that absorption of visible laser light by the pigment can assist in the process of swelling, gelatinization, and gelation by enabling the transfer of heat/energy from a visible light laser to the starch mixture (where the use of such visible light lasers is known in the art as shown by Blutinger), and that pigments that don’t absorb the wavelength of the laser light can hinder the process of swelling, gelatinization, and gelation.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Parker is unrelated to the starch powder-water mixture since Parker is directed to synthetic pigment structures that mimic the optical properties of intact pigment granules from the brown chromatophores in the skin of the cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis, and that Lamelas also fails to disclose a starch powder-water mixture, the Examiner maintains, as stated above, that Parker and Lamelas teach pigments that may be used with food products, and that combination of edible pigment and starch is known in the art from Slemmer, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the relevance of the teachings of Parker and Lamelas to the process of the claimed invention and that of the primary reference, Noort. A secondary prior art reference need not teach each and every feature of the invention to provide relevant teaching.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Parker and Lamelas are only directed to optical properties, the Examiner notes that it is unclear what the Applicant means by that statement, and to what optical properties the Applicant is specifically referring. If the Applicant is indicating that the references only discuss the absorbance of light by pigments, the Examiner maintains that such teaching is highly relevant to the claimed invention which directly concerns a method comprising absorbance of light.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that, although Blutinger discloses the use of a visible light laser, it is intended to more evenly cook the food (see paragraph [0048]), and Blutinger does not disclose a starch powder-water mixture, or adding a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light to the starch powder-water mixture, the Examiner notes that a starch powder-water mixture, and adding a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light to the starch powder-water mixture are obvious in view of the prior art for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, 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 this case, Noort discloses a method for gelatinizing a starch-water mixture with laser light, but is silent on the specific use of a visible light laser. Blutinger discloses treating food products with a visible light laser, and while Blutinger indicates that the laser is used for cooking, both gelatinization and cooking are processes of transferring heat/energy to food products. Consequently, the use of a visible light laser for treating a starch-water mixture would be obvious in view of Blutinger. Moreover, the Applicant has not identified any particular or unique effect resulting from the use of a visible light laser that would be unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments against Shoseyov for failing to disclose the features of "mixture providing unit configured to provide a mixture of a starch powder, water and a pigment exhibiting absorption at a wavelength of visible laser light, wherein the mixture providing unit is configured to disperse the starch powder in the water to provide the mixture in the form of a suspension," and "the laser light source configured to emit the laser light is a visible-light laser", the Examiner notes that these features are newly added in amendments to claim 18, and are obvious in view of the prior art for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 18.
Therefore, claims 1, 18 and all dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792