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 .
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morey et al. (20180213963) in view of Mencacci et al. (4003302).
Morey teaches a commercial-scale (title) fresh sous vide cooking method (title) comprising:
searing food using infrared radiation (par. 0043)
positioning the food (par. 0054) in separate (par. 0054) water-impermeable packages (par. 0056)
vacuum sealing the separate water-impermeable packages with the food positioned therein (par. 0054, 0039)
and positioning the separate vacuum-packaged food packages in a wet-steam (par. 0039 saturated) cookhouse to fresh sous vide cook the food (par. 0039).
Morey teaches the commercial scale sous-vide system comprising a cooking chamber heated with steam for cooking the individual packages in multiples and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of steam cooking chambers as taught by Mencacci.
More specifically Mencacci teaches positioning food in separate packages (col. 4 lines 65-66), placing the separate packaged food packages on racks (first instance with respect to multiple carts ref. 40 col. 4 line 47; second instance col. 4 lines 61-62 supporting trays ref. 50 horizontal food package support, spaced vertically), positioning (col. 4 lines 48-49) racks with the separate packaged food in a steam (col. 5 lines 55-59; col. 5 lines 14-15) cook house (col. 4 line 45 vessel 32) and cooking the separate packaged food, where the separate packaged food packages remain stationary and supported on the racks during cooking (col. 11 lines 24-25; col. 4 lines 50-55).
Thus since both teach a same cooking chamber, since both teach a same packaged food for cooking by steam, since Morey teaches the specific concept and advantage of steam based cooking in a chamber for sous-vide cooking (par. 0039) and since Mencacci teaches the alternative to movement of the containers during heat treatment by a still cooking type where the containers are stationary during cooking (col. 11 lines 24-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one type of cooking chamber comprising movement with that of stationary cooking since such are obvious alternatives as taught by Menacci and achieving a same steam cooked food, in the instant case sous-vide cooked food by steam cooking on a commercial scale as taught by Morey.
More specifically, since Morey teaches addressing the need for commercial scale sous-vide cooking by providing a saturated steam chamber controlled to achieve sous vide cooking (par. 0039) as opposed to typical sous vide cooking which is carried out in a water bath (par. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the alternative to movement of the containers during heat treatment by a still cooking type where the containers are stationary during cooking as taught by Menacci (col. 11 lines 24-27) for batch cooking, by supporting the food packages on racks (first instance with respect to multiple carts ref. 40 col. 4 line 47; second instance col. 4 lines 61-62 supporting trays ref. 50 horizontal food package support, spaced vertically), positioning (col. 4 lines 48-49) racks with the separate packaged food in a steam (col. 5 lines 55-59; col. 5 lines 14-15) cook house (col. 4 line 45 vessel 32) and cooking the separate packaged food, where the separate packaged food packages remain stationary and supported on the racks during cooking (col. 11 lines 24-25; col. 4 lines 50-55) as taught by Menacci thus achieving a same sous vide cooking of the packaged products and achieving the desired solution addressing the need for commercial scale sous-vide cooking by providing a saturated steam chamber controlled to achieve sous vide cooking (par. 0039) as opposed to typical sous vide cooking which is carried out in a water bath (par. 0004).
With respect to claim 2, wherein the food has not been frozen before searing (par. 0043 cut without freezing; par. 0003 raw food, sous-vide without freezing).
With respect to claim 3, Morey teaches tumbling the food in a tumbler (par. 0053). Though silent to teaching such with respect to before searing the food, since Morey teaches both marinating and searing prior to vacuum sealing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to marinate as taught by Morey prior to searing since selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results such as in the instant case providing the processing steps which are required of effect the food product prior to sealing in a package.
With respect to claim 4, Morey teaches the control system relative the pre-heating and the sous vide cooking being monitored by a control system to achieve predefined conditions. Morey further teaches the tumbler for marinading (par. 0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate the control system as taught by Morey with respect to the vacuum tumbler for monitoring a speed or time parameter and adjusting the tumbler based on the time or speed thus achieving a same marinaded food product due to controlling the vacuum tumbler relative different size and types of food products as further taught by Morey (par. 0037, 0042).
With respect to claim 5, monitoring one or more parameters associated with an infrared oven emitting the infrared radiation (par. 0048) and adjusting the infrared oven based on the one or more parameters (par. 0048).
Claim 7, Menacci further teaches positioning the packaged food on pallets (col. 4 line 60 bottom wall ref. 48), where the pallets are supported by the racks (first instance with respect to multiple carts ref. 40 col. 4 line 47; line 58 each cart).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach positioning the packaged food on pallets (col. 4 line 60 bottom wall ref. 48), where the pallets are supported by the racks (first instance with respect to multiple carts ref. 40 col. 4 line 47; line 58 each cart) as taught by Menacci (col. 11 lines 24-27) for batch cooking, and cooking the separate packaged food, where the separate packaged food packages remain stationary and supported on the racks during cooking (col. 11 lines 24-25; col. 4 lines 50-55) as taught by Menacci thus achieving a same sous vide cooking of the packaged products and achieving the desired solution addressing the need for commercial scale sous-vide cooking by providing a saturated steam chamber controlled to achieve sous vide cooking (par. 0039) as opposed to typical sous vide cooking which is carried out in a water bath (par. 0004) and achieving a same cooking of multiple products concurrently as opposed to individually in a stable fashion and providing a pallet for known purpose of providing ease in transportation and storage due to supporting multiple products in a stable fashion.
Claim 8, Menacci teaches selectively positioning pallets at a desired elevation on the racks (col. 4 lines 47-49 in/out; relative cooking elevation/position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach positioning pallets at a desired elevation on the racks (col. 4 lines 47-49 in/out; relative cooking elevation/position) as taught by Menacci thus achieving a same sous vide cooking of the packaged products and achieving the desired solution addressing the need for commercial scale sous-vide cooking by providing a saturated steam chamber controlled to achieve sous vide cooking (par. 0039) as opposed to typical sous vide cooking which is carried out in a water bath (par. 0004) and achieving a same cooking of multiple products concurrently as opposed to individually in a stable fashion and providing a pallet for known purpose of providing ease in
Claim 9, monitoring one or more parameters (par. 0054 on/off; conveying, upper sheet relative lower sheet, when to vacuum seal) associated with a packaging machine vacuum sealing the water-impermeable package (par. 0054 where it is noted the system of Morey is automated and thus monitored with respect to order of operation) and adjusting the packaging machine based on the one or more parameters (par. 0054 on/off; conveying, upper sheet relative lower sheet, when to vacuum seal).
Claim 10, monitoring one or more parameters associated with the wet-steam cookhouse (par. 0075, 0076) and adjusting the wet-steam cookhouse based on the one or more parameters (par. 0080, 0081, 0088-0090).
With respect to claim 11, since Morey teaches after cooking providing the food vacuum packaged food product to a freezer (par. 0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a kind of freezer, such as in the instant case a blast chiller, relative the broadly taught freezer of Morey for achieving a same food product which due to freezing can be transported and stored (par. 0058) and which maintains a frozen state to preclude the re-growth of pathogens the intent of Morey.
With respect to claim 12, Morey teaches the control system relative the pre-heating and the sous vide cooking being monitored by a control system to achieve predefined conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate the control system as taught by Morey for monitoring one or more parameters associated with the blast chiller, such as in the instant case temperature and/or time and adjusting the blast chiller based on the one or more parameters for its art recognized purpose of achieving a same food product which due to freezing can be transported and stored (par. 0058) and which maintains a frozen state to preclude the re-growth of pathogens the intent of Morey
With respect to claim 13, where said searing food is performed using an infrared oven (par. 0043) and where said positioning the food and said vacuum sealing are performed using a packaging machine (par. 0054). The method further comprising controlling, using a control system (par. 0077-0080), one or more parameters associated with one or more of the infrared oven (par. 0048), the packaging machine or the wet-steam cookhouse (par. 0080, 0081, 0088-0090)
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urgings directed to the continuous cooking of Morey. Importantly, Morey teaches the specific concept of steam sous-vide cooking of packaged food products. More specifically, Morey teaches addressing the need for commercial scale sous-vide cooking by providing a saturated steam chamber controlled to achieve sous vide cooking (par. 0039) as opposed to typical sous vide cooking which is carried out in a water bath (par. 0004).
Mencacci teaches positioning food in separate packages (col. 4 lines 65-66), placing the separate packaged food packages on racks (first instance with respect to multiple carts ref. 40 col. 4 line 47; second instance col. 4 lines 61-62 supporting trays ref. 50 horizontal food package support, spaced vertically), positioning (col. 4 lines 48-49) racks with the separate packaged food in a steam (col. 5 lines 55-59; col. 5 lines 14-15) cook house (col. 4 line 45 vessel 32) and cooking the separate packaged food, where the separate packaged food packages remain stationary and supported on the racks during cooking (col. 11 lines 24-25; col. 4 lines 50-55).
Thus since both teach a same cooking chamber, since both teach a same packaged food for cooking by steam, since Morey teaches the specific concept and advantage of steam based cooking in a chamber for sous-vide cooking (par. 0039) and since Mencacci teaches the alternative to movement of the containers during heat treatment by a still cooking type where the containers are stationary during cooking (col. 11 lines 24-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one type of cooking chamber comprising movement with that of stationary cooking since such are obvious alternatives as taught by Menacci and achieving a same steam cooked food, in the instant case sous-vide cooked food by steam cooking on a commercial scale as taught by Morey.
More specifically, since Morey teaches addressing the need for commercial scale sous-vide cooking by providing a saturated steam chamber controlled to achieve sous vide cooking (par. 0039) as opposed to typical sous vide cooking which is carried out in a water bath (par. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the alternative to movement of the containers during heat treatment by a still cooking type where the containers are stationary during cooking as taught by Menacci (col. 11 lines 24-27) for batch cooking, by supporting the food packages on racks (first instance with respect to multiple carts ref. 40 col. 4 line 47; second instance col. 4 lines 61-62 supporting trays ref. 50 horizontal food package support, spaced vertically), positioning (col. 4 lines 48-49) racks with the separate packaged food in a steam (col. 5 lines 55-59; col. 5 lines 14-15) cook house (col. 4 line 45 vessel 32) and cooking the separate packaged food, where the separate packaged food packages remain stationary and supported on the racks during cooking (col. 11 lines 24-25; col. 4 lines 50-55) as taught by Menacci thus achieving a same sous vide cooking of the packaged products and achieving the desired solution addressing the need for commercial scale sous-vide cooking by providing a saturated steam chamber controlled to achieve sous vide cooking (par. 0039) as opposed to typical sous vide cooking which is carried out in a water bath (par. 0004).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights