DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09/14/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 8-15, and 17-23 have been amended; claims 3-5, 7, 16 have been cancelled; and claims 24 and 25 have been added. Thus, claims 1, 2, 6, 8-15, and 17-25 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as detailed hereafter:
“marination means”: “FIG. 1 shows an embodiment of the inventive line. This line comprises a marination apparatus 33, in which the meat, preferably the bacon, is treated with a marination liquid. Preferably, the marination apparatus comprises an array of needles, which each inject a marination liquid into the meat, preferably the bacon. Additionally or preferably, the meat, preferably the bacon, is preferably tumbled..”, para. [0068].
“temperature control means”: “Each chamber is preferably supplied with the same smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid. Each chamber is preferably supplied with the same amount of smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid per time unit. After the smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid has been supplied to the chambers, the smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid is super-heated to a temperature >100° C., preferably 160-200° C. Particularly, the temperature in the two chambers is preferably different, wherein the temperature of the downstream chamber is preferably higher than the temperature in the upstream chamber, preferably by a difference of 10-40° C., more preferably 15-35° C. The dew-point in the two chambers is preferably different, wherein the dew-point of the downstream chamber is preferably lower than the dew-point in the upstream chamber, preferably 1-10° C., more preferably 4-8° C. The residence time of the meat slices in the oven is preferably 6-16 minutes, more preferably 7-9 min.”, para. [0081].
“means to atomize a smoking – and/or a flavoring-liquid in the oven”: “The means to atomize the smoking- and/or flavoring-liquid can comprise one or more nozzles, for example an array of nozzles. The atomizing means may provide the atomized smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid continuously or intermittently. The droplet-size of the atomized smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid is preferably <3.0 μm, more preferably <1.5 μm and even more preferably <1.0 μm. During the atomization, preferably part of the atomized smoking- and/or flavoring-liquid is ejected from each nozzle as a gas. This part is preferably less than 20 weight %, more preferably 14-16 weight % of the smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid supplied to the nozzle. The atomized smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid-stream is preferably ejected into an air-flow which is circulated in one chamber of the oven, whereas the air-flow preferably has a temperature between 50-250° C., more preferably 100-200° C., particularly at the point of ejection of the smoking- and/or flavoring-liquid. The velocity of the air-flow at the point of ejection is preferably between 0.5 and 35 m/s more preferably between 1 and 9 m/s. At least one of the above described conditions assures a complete evaporation of the droplets.
After atomization, the particle size distribution of the droplet is preferably:
<0.20 μm 1.99%
<0.50 μm 6.26%
<0.60 μm 22.48%
<0.70 μm 45.89%
<0.85 μm 69.37%
<1.00 μm 86.70%
<5.00 μm 100.00%
Preferably, 0.75-5 weight.-%, more preferably 1.5-3 weight.-% of smoking- and/or flavoring-liquid relative to the initial weight of the meat, preferably the bacon, is provided to the oven.”, para. [0019]-[0021].
“fat blow-off means”: “Drying according to the present invention means that the weight of the meat is reduced due to a fat- and/or moisture-loss. The drying of the meat can take place due to dripping of a substance, particularly fat, from the meat and/or due to evaporation of a substance, particularly fat and/or water, from the surface of the meat.”, para. [0073].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 15 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 15 recites “the system does not include the oven”, it is submitted that a dependent claim which negates/deletes the inclusion of an earlier limitation of a claim from which the instant claim depends is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “the system does not include the oven for smoking or drying the meat before the loaf is cut by the slicer”, it is submitted that as claim 15 is directed toward a system, the claim should recite the arrangement of structural limitations within the claimed system in relation to other structural elements (not functional limitations). Furthermore, as currently presented, the aforementioned claim limitation is a functional limitation which renders the claim indefinite additionally as a mixed-type claim (see MPEP 2173.05(p)II: II. PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 10-13 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 6,045,841) in view of Kop et al. (US 2015/0245643).
With regard to claim 10, Singh teaches a system for processing meat (“This invention relates to a method for preparing food products. In particular, it relates to a method for preparing precooked, sliced bacon and related products.”) comprising a marination means (“needle injection machine”) for marinating a loaf of the meat, the marination means comprises an array of needles for injecting a marination liquid into the meat (“The pickle solution is applied by any suitable method. In a preferred embodiment, the pickle solution is pumped, i.e., injected directly into the lean side of the green pork belly under pressure to increase the weight of the meat by about 8% to about 15% of its green weight. The pickle solution is injected using a needle injection machine, such as made by Townsend Engineering Co. of Des Moines, Iowa. The needles in the injection machine are distributed across the width of the machine, preferably within about 1/2" of each other, and uniformly deliver pickle solution under pressure in the belly tissues.”, col. 3, ln. 55-65) and an oven for drying the slices (cl. 19, step #5: “completing the cooking by heating the partially cooked sliced bacon in an impingement oven with impinging air ….”), wherein the oven (“impingement oven”) is provided downstream from the slicer (per cl. 19, slicing occurs at step #3 whereas the oven drying occurs at step #5), and a conveyor belt, wherein the slices are loaded on the convevor belt with a loader that is configured to distribute the slices onto the conveyor belt such that the slices do not overlap each other on the conveyor belt (“The chilled pork belly is then sliced, in preferred embodiments, using a high speed slicers onto a continuous conveyor belt”, “The treated slices were placed on a transport belt and transported through an impingement oven made by Lincoln Food Service, Co. of Fort Wayne, Ind. The treated slices were cooked using 400° F. impinged air directed from both the top and the bottom of the belt.”).
Although Singh teaches an oven and conveyor as detailed above, the citation does not teach that the oven comprises a first chamber, a second chamber, and a partition between the first chamber and the second chamber, the first chamber comprises a first drum and the second chamber comprises a second drum, and the conveyor belt (7) is guided around the first chamber and then the second chamber along two helical sections. However, Kop from the same field of endeavor directed toward a combination of cooking and smoking teaches the aforementioned limitations: the oven (1)(FIGS. 1-3) comprises a first chamber (3), a second chamber (4), and a partition (2) between the first chamber (3) and the second chamber (4), the first chamber (3) comprises a first drum (5) and the second chamber (4) comprises a second drum (6), and the conveyor belt (7) is guided around the first chamber (3) and then the second chamber (4) along two helical sections (8/9) (“The oven 1 comprises a first chamber 3 and a second chamber 4. The chambers are divided by means of a partition 2. In the present case, a rotatable drum 5, 6 is arranged in each of these chambers, around which the conveyor belt 7 is guided along two helical paths 8, 9. The endless conveyor belt enters the oven 1 via the entrance 10 here by a straight conveyor belt section 11 and leaves the oven 1 via the exit 12, here likewise by means of a straight section 13. The two helical sections 8, 9 are here connected by the straight conveyor belt section 14, which lies at the top.”, para. [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Singh reference, to such that the oven comprises a first chamber, a second chamber, and a partition between the first chamber and the second chamber, the first chamber comprises a first drum and the second chamber comprises a second drum, and the conveyor belt is guided around the first chamber and then the second chamber along two helical sections, as suggested and taught by Kop, for the purpose of providing an enhanced food preparation operation.
With regard to claim 11, Kop teaches temperature control means for adjusting and controlling temperature and/or humidity in the at least one chamber using a gas which comprises a heater to heat the gas, a blower, and a duct to introduce the heated gas into the at least one chamber (“The present invention relates to an oven comprising: at least one chamber, preferably conveyor means for guiding products from the inlet through this chambers to the outlet, temperature control means for controlling the temperature and/or humidity in the chamber using a gas, which comprises a heater to heat the fluid, a blower and a duct to introduce the heated fluid into the chamber”, para. [0001]); and atomizing means to atomize a smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid in the oven (“wherein the oven comprises means to atomize a smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid into the oven,”, claim 1).
With regard to claim 12, Kop teaches the atomizing means is a nozzle or a two phase nozzle (“wherein the means is a two phase nozzle,”, claim 1).
With regard to claim 13, Singh teaches the oven comprises fat blow-off means (“Alternatively, the bacon drippings can be separated into components, such as a fat-phase component and a nonfat-phase component, and only certain of the components used. The fat and the non-fat phases are separated from one another using conventional techniques such a gravity separation or centrifugation.”).
With regard to claims 17 and 24, Kop teaches the oven (1) comprises an entrance (10) through which the conveyor belt (7) enters the oven along a first straight section (11) and an exit (12) through which the conveyor belt exits the oven along a second straight section (13), wherein the conveyor belt further comprises a straight section (14) between the two helical sections (“conveyor belt 7 is guided along two helical paths 8, 9. The endless conveyor belt enters the oven 1 via the entrance 10 here by a straight conveyor belt section 11 and leaves the oven 1 via the exit 12, here likewise by means of a straight section 13. The two helical sections 8, 9 are here connected by the straight conveyor belt section 14, which lies at the top. The belt is permeable to the process fluid, e.g. air and steam. The partition means 2 comprise a passage 2.1 for the belt section 14. This passage 2.1 is larger than the conveyor belt 14.”, para. [0078]).
With regard to claims 18 and 25, Kop teaches the oven (1) comprises a heating means (15) comprising a blower (16) comprising a spiral casing (17), which opens into a duct (18), a heating element situated in the duct, wherein process fluids are sucked up by the blower out of the first chamber (3) or the second chamber (4) and forced into the duct (18), the process fluids then flow past the heating element, and are then recycled back into the first chamber or the second chamber (“The heating means, which are overall denoted by 15, are arranged in the top of the housing. These heating means 15 each comprise a blower 16 here with a spiral casing 17, which opens into a duct 18. A heating element is situated in the ducts 18, respectively. The process fluid, e.g. air and steam, is sucked up by the blower 16 out of chambers 3, 4 via inlet 24 and is forced into the duct 18 via the spiral casing 17, respectively. The process fluid 31 flows past the heating elements 34 and is then recycled into the respective chamber 3, 4. Arrow 23, according to FIG. 3, depicts the fluid flow in the chamber 3, 4. The motion of the products (not depicted) to be cooked in the oven is depicted by arrows 29.”, para. [0079]).
With regard to claim 19, Kop teaches the oven (1) comprises an adjustment means (“adjustment means”) to adjust a flow of the process fluids over a width of the conveyor belt (7), the adjustment means comprises a plate (19) that is located in a region of the straight section of the conveyor belt (7), the plate (19) is partially located in the duct (18) and extends into a control area (21), the plate (19) is configured to pivot about an axis to guide and/or split a flow of the process fluids after the process fluids passed the heating means (“According to FIG. 3 oven may comprise adjustment means to adjust the flow of process fluid over the width of the belt, which is, in the present example a plate 19. This plate 19 is located in the straight part 14 of the conveyor belt 7 and extends over the length L, as can be seen in FIG. 2. The plate 19 is partially located in the duct 18 and extends into a control area 21. The plate 19 pivots around an axis 26. The degree of deflection relative to its vertical position is depicted by double-arrow a. The plate 19 guides and splits the fluid flow 31 after it has passed the heating means, so that the desired flow pattern over the width of the conveyor belt is achieved. By means of the plate 19, the flow 31 can be split and guided from the outside 7″ of belt 7 to the inside 7′ and vice versa. Every desired fluid-flow distribution over the width W can be achieved by means of plate 19. Examples for fluid-flow distributions are shown in FIG. 7. The desired fluid-flow distribution is achieved over the entire length L of plate 19. Equalization means 20, here a perforated plate, are located at the bottom of the control area 21 to support the flow-distribution of plate 19 and/or increase the pressure in the control area. After the fluid flow has heated products 25, it passes through the permeable belt 7 and is the deflected by an inclined plate 22. The flow 23 inside chamber 3 flows past the helical path 8 and is then sucked up again by blower 16 via inlet 24.”, para. [0080]).
With regard to claim 20, Kop teaches the system comprises an equalization means (20) comprising a perforated plate located at a bottom of the control area (21) below the plate of the adjustment means and configured to increase pressure in the control area (21), the system further comprises an inclined plate (22) configured to deflect the process fluids past one or both of the helical sections (8), to be sucked up again by the blower (16) (“Equalization means 20, here a perforated plate, are located at the bottom of the control area 21 to support the flow-distribution of plate 19 and/or increase the pressure in the control area. After the fluid flow has heated products 25, it passes through the permeable belt 7 and is the deflected by an inclined plate 22. The flow 23 inside chamber 3 flows past the helical path 8 and is then sucked up again by blower 16 via inlet 24.”, para. [0080]).
With regard to claim 21, Kop teaches the svstem comprises a means to atomize (27, 28) a smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid, the means to atomize comprising one or more two-phase nozzles, the one or more two-phase nozzles (27, 28) are configured to be operated with a pressurized gas to divide the smoking- and/or the flavoring-liquid into particles and distribute the particles into an air stream (31) in the oven (1) (“According to the present invention, upstream and/or downstream from the blower 16 and/or upstream and/or downstream from the heater 32, means 27, 28 to atomize a smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid, in the present case one or more two- phase nozzles 27, 28, are provided. The atomized smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid is provided as a cloud of very fine fluid particles and ejected into the air-stream 31, in which the droplets evaporate before they coalesce. Each two phase nozzle 27, 28 is operated with a pressurized gas (not shown) in order to divide the stream of smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid into the fine particles and to distribute the droplets in the air-stream 31. The smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid can be provided to each or only one chamber 3, 4. The smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid can also be introduced at different locations into the oven. Each chamber can be supplied with the same or differing smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquids.”, para. [0081]), wherein the one or more two-phase nozzles (27, 28) are supplied with compressed air between 3 bar and 8 bar (“As the second phase compressed gas, preferably air, is utilized which is preferably supplied at a pressure between 5 and 7 Bar, preferably 5.5-6.5 Bar.”, para. [0039]), a ratio of the smoking- and/or the flavoring-liquid flow to the one or more two-phase nozzles versus a gas-flow to the one or more two-phase nozzles is between 0.3 kg/m and 0.6 kg/m^3, a gas-flow to each of the one or more two-phase nozzles is between 3.0 m[[ 1103 /h and 10.0 m[[ 11^3 /h, the smoking- and/or the flavoring-liquid is adjusted at a flow rate between 0.2 kg/h and 25 kg/h, a droplet-size of the atomized smoking- and/or the flavoring-liquid is <1.0 µm (it must be stressed that the “and/or” terms recited within the claim require one or more of the conditions to be taught by the prior art – the examiner has emphasized the limitation they are addressing herein – if the Applicant intends for multiple conditions to be explicitly required an appropriate claim amendment should be furthered).
With regard to claim 22, Kop teaches the first chamber (3) and the second chamber (4) is-are supplied with the same smoking- and/or flavoring-liquid per time unit, wherein after the smoking- and/or the flavoring-liquid has been supplied to the first chamber (3) and the second chamber (4), the smoking- and/or a-the flavoring-liquid is super-heated to a temperature greater than 100° C (“The atomized smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid-stream is preferably ejected into an air-flow which is circulated in one chamber of the oven, whereas the air-flow preferably has a temperature between 50-250° C., more preferably 100-200° C., particularly at the point of ejection of the smoking- and/or flavoring-liquid.”, para. [0017]). or a temperature between 160° C and 200° C, wherein the temperature in the first chamber is different than a temperature in the second chamber by a temperature difference of 10° C to 40° C, wherein a dew-point in the first chamber is different than a dew point in the second chamber by 4° C to 8° C, and wherein a residence time of the slices in the oven is between 7 minutes and 9 minutes (“More preferably, the oven comprises two or more chambers, in which a different temperature, different humidity and/or different heat-transfer-conditions can be set, respectively. Preferably each chamber comprises a blower and heating means, whereas the blower and/or the heating means can be operated in each chamber separately.”, para. [0021]) (It must be stressed that the “and/or” terms recited within the claim require one or more of the conditions to be taught by the prior art – the examiner has emphasized the limitation they are addressing herein – if the Applicant intends for multiple conditions to be explicitly required an appropriate claim amendment should be furthered. Additionally, it must be stressed that the specific claimed temperature differences, dew points and residence times would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve a desired processing operation of the food products in the oven as the claimed structural limitations which further said limitations are taught by the cited prior art as detailed above and/or as an obvious optimum range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
With regard to claim 23, Kop teaches in the oven, a smoke condensate is transferred into an invisible superheated gas phase, wherein the smoke condensate comprises Phenols: 0.1-0.56%, Carbonyls: 3.5-13.0%, Polysorbate: 0-2.25%, and water (“Another subject matter of the present invention is a smoke condensate comprising: Phenols: 0.1-0.56% Carbonyls: 3.5-13.0% Polysorbate: 0-2.25%
and the rest water.”, para. [0042]); Acids: 2.5-6.5%, Phenols: 0.1-0.56%, Carbonyls: 3.5-13.0%, Polysorbate: 0-2.25%, Benzo(a)pyren <10 ppb, Benzo(a)anthrazen <20 ppb (“Another preferred or inventive embodiment of the present invention, is a smoke condensate comprising: Acids: 2.5-6.5%
Phenols: 0.1-0.56% Carbonyls: 3.5-13.0% Polysorbate: 0-2.25% Benzo(a)pyren <10 ppb Benzo(a)anthrazen <20 ppb”, para. [0048]); or Phenol 0.1-0.35 weight-%, Carbonyl 3.5- 8.5 weight-%, Polysorbate 0-1.5 weight-% (“Another preferred or inventive embodiment of the present invention, is a smoke condensate comprising: Phenol 0.1-0.35 weight-% Carbonyl 3.5-8.5 weight-% Polysorbate 0-1.5 weight-%”, para. [0056]); wherein a-ph-value pH value of the smoke condensate is between 2.0 and 3.5 (“the smoke condensate according claim 25, wherein a pH-value is between 2.0 and 3.5.”, claim 26); and wherein a viscosity of the smoke condensate is between 4.0 mPas/sec and 5.5 mPas/sec, measured at 20° C (“The viscosity of the smoke condensate is preferably 4.0-5.5 mPas/sec, measured at 20° C.”, para. [0065]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 6,045,841) and Kop et al. (US 2015/0245643), and further in view of Bertrand (WO 2008009450).
With regard to claim 14, although Singh teaches the invention as claimed, the citation does not teach the claimed freezer. However, Bertrand which is directed toward the same field of endeavor of the preparation of a food product teaches the system comprises a freezer downstream from the oven in which the slices are chilled or frozen (“It is particularly preferred that drying and freezing of the meat product is executed subsequently in an in-line process.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Singh reference, to include the claimed freezer, as suggested and taught by Bertrand, for the purpose of providing a mechanism to process the food product to ready it for transportation to a different location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims and are addressed hereafter. The newly asserted prior art rejections are presented herein in response to the newly amended claim recitations and new claims are presented herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
