DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 10-13 drawn to an apparatus in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged.
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].
“conveyor means”: “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. 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. The person skilled in the art understands that the oven needs not necessarily comprise two chambers, but it is preferred.”, para. [0077].
“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 10-13 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 comprising….”; however, it is respectfully submitted that “a line” is not a term which is description of a structural element/limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the means is ….”; however, claims 10 and 11 from which claim 12 depends directly or indirectly recite multiple “means”. Appropriate correction regarding which “means” is being referenced is required.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected for at least the reason of their dependency from one of the aforementioned rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldstrand et al. (CA 749306).
With regard to claim 10, Goldstrand describes a line (FIG. 1) comprising a marination means (Nozzles “N” spray a curing solution) for marinating a loaf of meat (“the slices are successively fog-sprayed with a curing solution which may include smoke flavoring, if artificial smoke flavor is desired, and which has the requisite concentration of brine, sugar and nitrite ions..”, pg. 3, ln. 13-16), a slicer for cutting the loaf of meat into slices (“The frozen bellies are divided into slabs and molded in frozen state, then returned to a freezer having a temperature approximating 28°F., and held and stored at that temperature for a predetermined time, prior to slicing. If desired the molded slabs may be held at 25°F., temporarily for a minimum of 1/2 hour and then sliced. The frozen molded slabs are then sliced within a thickness range usually between .0833 and .1426 inches and during the slicing operation which may employ a conventional machine such as the U. S. slicer manufactured by U. S. Slicing Machine Co., of La Porte, Indiana, U. S. A. (which also will arrange the successive slices in shingled relation), the slices are successively fog-sprayed with a curing solution which may include smoke flavoring, if artificial smoke flavor is desired, and which has the requisite concentration of brine, sugar and nitrite ions”, pg. 3, ln. 2-16, and an oven (1) for drying and smoking the slices (“In the important heating and smoking operation carried out in chamber 1 the controls are set to maintain the dry bulb 30 temperature therein at some point close to 170°F.”, pg. 7, ln. 28-30), wherein the oven is provided downstream from the slicer (“from the foregoing description of the exemplary apparatus system illustrated, it will be seen that all but the first steps of skinning, freezing, cutting and molding the pig bellies and sides with the attendant slicing and simultaneous application of the first spray-fogging solution step, may be carried out in minimum space requirements with production of a very high quality sliced product such as bacon, within an hour's time or less. 30 An apparatus system such as that disclosed requires floor space of approximately 21 feet in length, a width of less than 3 feet (not including a cubical smoke-producing unit of 2-1/2 foot dimensions together with some elements of the cooling unit).“, pg. 8, ln. 23-29.
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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstrand et al. (CA 749306) in view of Hefei (CN 107668553).
With regard to claim 11, Goldstrand teaches a line (FIG. 1) comprising a marination means (Nozzles “N” spray a curing solution) for marinating a loaf of meat (“the slices are successively fog-sprayed with a curing solution which may include smoke flavoring, if artificial smoke flavor is desired, and which has the requisite concentration of brine, sugar and nitrite ions..”, pg. 3, ln. 13-16), a slicer for cutting the loaf of meat into slices (“The frozen bellies are divided into slabs and molded in frozen state, then returned to a freezer having a temperature approximating 28°F., and held and stored at that temperature for a predetermined time, prior to slicing. If desired the molded slabs may be held at 25°F., temporarily for a minimum of 1/2 hour and then sliced. The frozen molded slabs are then sliced within a thickness range usually between .0833 and .1426 inches and during the slicing operation which may employ a conventional machine such as the U. S. slicer manufactured by U. S. Slicing Machine Co., of La Porte, Indiana, U. S. A. (which also will arrange the successive slices in shingled relation), the slices are successively fog-sprayed with a curing solution which may include smoke flavoring, if artificial smoke flavor is desired, and which has the requisite concentration of brine, sugar and nitrite ions”, pg. 3, ln. 2-16, and an oven (1) for drying and smoking the slices (“In the important heating and smoking operation carried out in chamber 1 the controls are set to maintain the dry bulb 30 temperature therein at some point close to 170°F.”, pg. 7, ln. 28-30), wherein the oven is provided downstream from the slicer (“from the foregoing description of the exemplary apparatus system illustrated, it will be seen that all but the first steps of skinning, freezing, cutting and molding the pig bellies and sides with the attendant slicing and simultaneous application of the first spray-fogging solution step, may be carried out in minimum space requirements with production of a very high quality sliced product such as bacon, within an hour's time or less. 30 An apparatus system such as that disclosed requires floor space of approximately 21 feet in length, a width of less than 3 feet (not including a cubical smoke-producing unit of 2-1/2 foot dimensions together with some elements of the cooling unit).“, pg. 8, ln. 23-29.
Goldstrand further teaches the oven (1) comprises: at least one chamber (FIG. 1 illustrates chamber of 1); conveyor means (“conveyor C”) for guiding products from the inlet (“receiving end R”) through the at least one chamber (chamber of 1) to an outlet (delivery end D of delivery system); temperature control means (7) 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 (“A humidity and temperature controlling unit 7 such as the conventional unit made by Taylor Instrument Company, is provided and made a part of the heating and humidity system. Provision is made for controlling the amount of smoke delivered into blower B, diagrammatically indicated at 8 on the drawing.”, pg. 7, ln. 3-9; “the pallets P supporting the bacon slices are traveled through a tortuous course, as shown most effectively related with the smoke and heat distributor comprising the discharge 3 of the blower.”, pg. 7, ln. 11-14).
Golstrand 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 Goldstrand 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).
With regard to claim 12, Goldstrand teaches the means is a nozzle, or a two phase nozzle (“a battery of fogging spray nozzles”, pg. 2, ln. 16-17).
With regard to claim 13, Goldstrand teaches the oven comprises fat blow-off means (“chamber 2 which contains a special blower device B for intaking and properly distributing within chamber 1, a volume of suitable natural smoke obtained from the combustion of hard wood”, pg. 6, ln. 20-22).
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