DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 2 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 2 are rejected.
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 .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Element 20 in paragraph [0070] is not shown in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 2 recite preambles that include semicolons (“;”), but it is recommended they are replaced with commas (“,”), as semicolons typically indicate the end of a limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 1 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A method of designing a device for transferring molten proteinaceous extrudate material from the exit of an extrusion cooker barrel to a cooling die whilst promoting or maintaining laminar flow of said molten extrudate; said device having an internal channel through which said extrudate flows comprising a laminar flow development zone and having a length Le; said method including:
Selecting an internal channel diameter (d);
Determining the average flow velocity (v) of the extrudate in said diameter;
Determining the density (p) of the extrudate;
Determining the viscosity (p) of the extrudate;
Determining the hydraulic diameter (L) of the extrudate flowing in said channel;
Determining the Reynolds Number (Re) for the extrudate flow in said channel;
Calculating the length Le by applying the formula: Le=0.006×d×Re.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitations of “Selecting an internal channel diameter (d)”, “Determining the average flow velocity (v) of the extrudate in said diameter”, “Determining the density (p) of the extrudate”, “Determining the viscosity (p) of the extrudate”, “Determining the hydraulic diameter (L) of the extrudate flowing in said channel”, “Determining the Reynolds Number (Re) for the extrudate flow in said channel” are directed to mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). These limitations, as drafted and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. There is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. A user can evaluate or perform an observation to select a measurement for an internal channel, perform an evaluation to obtain an average flow velocity, density, viscosity and Reynolds Number with regards to the extrudate, in which an observation or evaluation is performed in the human mind.
In addition, the limitation of “Calculating the length Le by applying the formula: Le=0.006×d×Re” is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), in the form of a mathematical calculation. The limitation, as drafted, is directed to performing mathematical calculation using the equation in the claim.
Under step 2A prong two, these judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim itself does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The preamble of the claim recites an intended use, but the limitations of the claim do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements that imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained above, the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1 and 2 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 1 recites “whilst promoting or maintaining laminar flow of said molten extrudate...”, but it is unclear from the claim or specification what is meant by “promoting”. It is unclear if this language is functional language or not, because it is not defined in the specification, and it is unclear how laminar flow of molten extrudate is being promoted. The term “promoting” in the claim is unclear, and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Suggested language: Amend the claim to “whilst
Claim 2 recites “whilst promoting laminar flow of said molten extrudate...”, but it is unclear from the claim or specification what is meant by “promoting”. It is unclear if this language is functional language or not, because it is not defined in the specification, and it is unclear how laminar flow of molten extrudate is being promoted. The term “promoting” in the claim is unclear, and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “whilst maintaining laminar flow of said molten extrudate”.
The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear in the claim the measurement in length the flow of the laminar flow development zone of the device needs to be in order to be considered having a length substantially equal to the calculated minimum length. The term is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear in the claim the measurement in length the flow of the laminar flow development zone of the transition device needs to be in order to be considered having a length substantially equal to the calculated minimum length. The term is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 1 and 2 lack antecedent basis for “the average flow velocity (Claim 1, line 7; claim 2, line 9).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “an average flow velocity”.
Claims 1 and 2 lack antecedent basis for “the extrudate” (Claim 1, line 7; claim 2, line 9).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “an extrudate”.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the density (Claim 1, line 8).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a density”.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the fluid density” (Claim 2, line 10).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a fluid density”.
Claims 1 and 2 lack antecedent basis for “the viscosity” (Claim 1, line 9).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a viscosity”.
Claims 1 and 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the hydraulic diameter” (Claim 1, line 10; claim 2, line 12).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a hydraulic diameter”.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the dynamic viscosity” (Claim 2, line 11).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a dynamic viscosity”.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the exit of an extrusion cooker barrel” (Claim 2, line 2).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “an exit of an extrusion cooker barrel”.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the geometry of the cooling die” (Claim 2, line 8).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a geometry of the cooling die”.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the ratio of four times” (Claim 2, line 14).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a ratio of four times”.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the cross-sectional area” (Claim 2, line 14).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a cross-sectional area”.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the wetted perimeter” (Claim 2, lines 14 - 15).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a wetted perimeter”.
Claims 1 and 2 lack antecedent basis for “Determining the Reynolds Number” (Claim 1, line 11; claim 2, line 16).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “Determining a Reynolds Number” or “Determining Reynolds Number”.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the length Le” (Claim 1, line 12).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a length Le”.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the formula” (Claim 1, line 12).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a formula”.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the previous step” (Claim 2, line 23).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a previous step”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1: The prior art of McMindes et al. (U.S. Patent 9,907,322 B2) discloses a cylindrical shaped two part sleeve die body with the die sleeve providing necessary elements to facilitate laminar flow, width of outlets between 10 mm and 40 mm, a height of the outlets between 8 mm and 16 mm, Shi (CN 101024304 A) discloses a bulking machine, i.e., extruder, Rees et al. (AU 2004205194 B2) discloses a twin-screw extruder and an extruder exit flow distribution device with a ratio of the extrudate flow path length being greater than or equal to 0.75:1, an extrudate flow path L, diameter D, and circular profile, and Howsam (U.S. PG Pub 2004/0247760 A1) discloses a cooling die, extrudate flow channels, and the flow of molten lava (extrudate) from the extruder flowing from an extruder outlet.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of McMindes, Shi, Rees, and Howsam, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses a method of designing a device for transferring molten proteinaceous extrudate material, including the steps of computing a length based on obtaining a Reynolds Number and using the diameter of the internal channel, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Claim 2: The prior art of McMindes et al. (U.S. Patent 9,907,322 B2) discloses a cylindrical shaped two part sleeve die body with the die sleeve providing necessary elements to facilitate laminar flow, width of outlets between 10 mm and 40 mm, a height of the outlets between 8 mm and 16 mm, Shi (CN 101024304 A) discloses a bulking machine, i.e., extruder, Rees et al. (AU 2004205194 B2) discloses a twin-screw extruder and an extruder exit flow distribution device with a ratio of the extrudate flow path length being greater than or equal to 0.75:1, an extrudate flow path L, diameter D, and circular profile, and Howsam (U.S. PG Pub 2004/0247760 A1) discloses a cooling die, extrudate flow channels, and the flow of molten lava (extrudate) from the extruder flowing from an extruder outlet.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of McMindes, Shi, Rees, and Howsam, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses a method of designing a device for transferring molten proteinaceous extrudate material, including the steps of fabricating a transition device with a laminar flow development zone with a length obtained from the designing of the device, with the length in terms of minimum length calculated based on a Reynolds Number computed from the dynamic viscosity, fluid density, hydraulic diameter, and average flow velocity of the extrudate, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
January 24, 2026