DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/15/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 10-12 have been amended; no claims have been cancelled; and claims 14-23 have been added. Thus, claims 1-23 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 Objections
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: end of sentence does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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.
Claims 10-23 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 10 recites “a line for processing meat”, the term “a line” is unclear as it does not relate to an explicit structural element. To help provide clarity to the claim, the Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim to recite “a system for processing meat comprising”. The remaining claims are rejected for at least the reason of their respective direct and/or indirect dependency from independent claim 10.
Claim 15 recites “the line does not include any apparatuses for smoking or drying the meat before the loaf is cut by the slicer”; however, it is unclear whether the aforementioned claimed “any apparatuses for smoking or drying” include the claimed “oven” and/or the claimed “marination means” of claim 10 from which the instant claim (i.e., claim 15) indirectly depends therefrom. 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 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 6,045,841) in view of Hefei (CN 107668553) and Bertrand (WO 2008009450).
With regard to claim 10, Singh teaches a line 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.”).
Singh does not teach means to atomize a smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid in the oven. However, Hefei related to the same field of endeavor as the instant patent application directed toward a type of method for meat products being smoked in a smoke solution atomizer teaches the aforementioned limitation: “The invention atomizes the smoked liquid into small droplets through the ultrasonic atomization technology, and inputs them into an oven to realize smoking during the roasting process of the meat products, so as to improve the quality of the meat products. The operation steps of a smoked liquid atomized smoked meat product are as follows: 1) Hang the bacon products in the oven; 2) Add smoke liquid into the ultrasonic atomizer, the amount of smoke liquid added is 1%-3% of the mass of the meat product to be smoked, and connect the fog outlet pipe of the atomizer to the air inlet of the oven ….”, pg. 2, ln. 32-37.
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 means to atomize a smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid in the oven, as suggested and taught by Hefei, for the purpose of providing atomized liquid smoke to add a predetermined amount of additional flavor and/or improve the quality of the meat product (pg. 2, ln. 32-37).
Singh does not teach a tumbler for tumbling the meat; however, Bertrand directed toward the same field of endeavor of preparation of a food product teaches the aforementioned limitation: “The tumbling process will be performed with a vacuum tumbler. The marinated products will be loaded into the tumbler and preferably a vacuum in the range of 40 to 95 % more preferably 50 to 85 and even more preferably 60 to 75% will be drawn. The tumbler will run preferably with a drum speed between 3 and 15 rpm, more preferably 6 to 12 rpm and even more preferably 8 to 10 rpm. After a preferred total tumbling time of 10 to 60 min, more preferably 20 to 50 and even more preferably 30 to 40 min the product will be transferred to the next processing step.”.
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 a tumbler for tumbling the meat, as suggested and taught by Bertrand, for the purpose of providing even dispersing of the marination product.
With regard to claim 11, Hefei teaches the oven comprises: temperature control means for adjusting and controlling a temperature and/or humidity in the at least one chamber of the oven 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; and atomizing means to atomize a smoking- and/or a flavoring-liquid in the oven ( “The invention atomizes the smoked liquid into small droplets through the ultrasonic atomization technology, and inputs them into an oven to realize smoking during the roasting process of the meat products, so as to improve the quality of the meat products. The operation steps of a smoked liquid atomized smoked meat product are as follows: 1) Hang the bacon products in the oven; 2) Add smoke liquid into the ultrasonic atomizer, the amount of smoke liquid added is 1%-3% of the mass of the meat product to be smoked, and connect the fog outlet pipe of the atomizer to the air inlet of the oven ….”, pg. 2, ln. 32-37; “Adjust the temperature of the oven to 80°C, preheat the enema for 20 minutes; adjust the temperature of the oven to 80°C, turn on the ultrasonic atomizer, adjust the frequency to 2.4MHZ, close the exhaust outlet of the oven, and smoke for 1.0h; then adjust the temperature of the oven At 70°C, adjust the frequency of the atomizer to 1.7MHZ, open the exhaust outlet of the oven, and atomize and smoke for 2 hours;”).
With regard to claim 12, Hefei teaches the atomizing means is a nozzle or a two phase nozzle (“The invention atomizes the smoked liquid into small droplets through the ultrasonic atomization technology, and inputs them into an oven to realize smoking during the roasting process of the meat products, so as to improve the quality of the meat products. The operation steps of a smoked liquid atomized smoked meat product are as follows: 1) Hang the bacon products in the oven; 2) Add smoke liquid into the ultrasonic atomizer, the amount of smoke liquid added is 1%-3% of the mass of the meat product to be smoked, and connect the fog outlet pipe of the atomizer to the air inlet of the oven ….”, pg. 2, ln. 32-37).
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 claim 14, although Singh teaches the invention as claimed, the citation does not teach the claimed freezer. However, Bertrand teaches the line 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and additionally assuming the above definiteness rejection(s) was overcome. As an example, regarding claim 16, a new independent claim which includes ALL of the limitations of claims 16 and 10; regarding claim 17, a new independent claim which includes ALL of the limitations of claims 17, 16, and 10; etc.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights