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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/16/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 fails to further limit parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-9, 11-12, 14-17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al [WO 2022/203160A1] in view of Clemens [EP 2463815A1], Park et al [US 2019/0008173A1], and Beef Aging NPL [Love Beef Tender: How Aging Affects Beef’s Tenderness].
Kang et al teach a meat ageing system (title) comprising a meat ageing device in communication with a server (Figure 1, #10, 20), the ageing device being a refrigerator with an ageing chamber (Figure 2), obtaining identification information and part information of a meat product (paragraph 0036-0037), generating ageing information in real-time (paragraph 0068-0070), a control unit which determines the current maturity, or ageing level, of the meat product based upon the obtained part information (paragraph 0072-0075), the controller adjusting the ageing parameters such as temperature and humidity to achieve the desired maturity level during an ageing period (paragraph 0072, 0076, 0135), the meat products having plural aging periods/stages over a number of days which result in different aging levels (paragraph 0108, 0110; Table 1; Figures 3 & 5), a display for outputting information such as the data transmitted and received between the maturing device and the control server (paragraph 0071), a server control unit which generates meat ageing information using deep learning techniques and/or machine learning techniques (paragraph 0092), the stored meat information om the server including meat type, color, weight, size, recipe information, and/or delivery time (paragraph 0094), the server including various portable electronic communication devices (paragraph 0097), the ageing device using either dry ageing or wet ageing (paragraph 0113), the recipe information including customized cooking methods (paragraph 0118), receiving delivery date information, or target date information, from the server (paragraph 0094, 0120), controlling the fan speed and ventilation during ageing (paragraph 0140), an aging completion notification (paragraph 0077), and aging at a high temperature followed by storing at a low temperature (paragraph 0116).
Kang et al do not explicitly recite obtaining slaughter date information, generating aging information based on slaughter date, part information, and the number of days since slaughter; displaying the generated aging information (claim 1), and requesting and receiving slaughter date information from the server (claim 2).
Clemens teaches a method for processing meat by obtaining the slaughter date information based on an identification information (abstract; Figure 3), as well as a sever providing the slaughter information (page 2, line 20).
Beef Aging NPL discloses that different cuts of meat age at different rates, require different aging times, and attain different aging results over time based upon which cut of meat they are (page 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the slaughter date, number of days since slaughter, and meat cut information to generate aging information, as well as the server function, into the invention of Kang et al, in view of Clemens and Beef Aging NPL, since all are directed to methods of processing meat products, since Kang et al already included requesting and receiving identification information from a server but simply did not mention slaughter date in particular, since Kang et al also disclosed that meat products having plural aging periods/stages over a number of days which result in different aging levels (paragraph 0108, 0110; Table 1; Figures 3 & 5) but simply did not mention the slaughter date as the start date, since meat processing systems commonly included obtaining the slaughter date information based on an identification information (abstract; Figure 3) as well as a server providing the slaughter information (page 2, line 20) as shown by Clemens, since meat aging naturally began when the animal was killed/slaughtered and enzyme-based autolysis immediately commenced in the carcass and meat parts, since using the slaughter date as the start date would have been the common and conventionally understood beginning of ageing due to this being the beginning of autolysis as described above, since slaughter date information would be important in meat ageing operations by permitting the user to accurately and precisely control the aging time period, since different cuts of meat were known to age at different rates, require different aging times, and attain different aging results over time based upon which cut of meat they are (page 2-3) as shown by Beef Aging NPL, and since compensating for slaughter date, number of days since slaughter, and meat cut information in the meat ageing system of Kang et al, in view of Clemens and Beef Aging NPL, would have enabled more accurate and precise control while also enabling improved product quality.
Park et al teach a meat-aging refrigerator (title) including a display (Figure 3, #150) which displays aging information such as aging level for different periods of time (Figure 5).
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the generated information in the method of Kang et al, in view of Clemens, Park et al, and Beef Aging NPL; since all are directed to methods of processing meat, since Kang et al already included a display for outputting information such as the data transmitted and received between the maturing device and the control server (paragraph 0071), since Clemens already disclosed obtaining the slaughter date information based on an identification information (abstract; Figure 3) and a sever providing the slaughter information (page 2, line 20), since meat aging systems commonly included a display (Figure 3, #150) which displays aging information such as aging level for different periods of time (Figure 5) as shown by Park et al, and since the user of Kang et al would have wanted to know the current and future aging settings and properties of the meat product in order to better ensure a properly aged meat product.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al, in view of Clemens, Park et al, and Beef Aging NPL; as applied above, and further in view of Kim et al [US 2020/0003482A1].
Kang et al, Park et al, and Beef Aging NPL and Clemens teach the above mentioned concepts. Kang et al do not explicitly recite transmitting information to the cooking appliance. Kim et al teach a kitchen wherein a refrigerator is in communication with cooking devices (Figure 7, #100, 500, 600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed cooking appliance communication into the invention of Kang et al, in view of Kim et al, since both are directed to food preparation systems, since Kang et al already included the recipe information including customized cooking methods (paragraph 0118), since refrigerators and cooking appliances were commonly in communication (Figure 7) as shown by Kim et al, and since communication between the various appliances would have enabled more accurate and precise control over meat quality.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al, in view of Clemens, Park et al, and Beef Aging NPL; as applied above, and further in view of Hsu [US 2018/0249723A1].
Kang et al Park et al, and Beef Aging NPL and Clemens teach the above mentioned concepts. Kang et al do not explicitly recite a vacuum box to be used during wet ageing (claim 13). Hsu teaches a method for ageing meat by use of a vacuum box with a gas outlet (Figure 5, #21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed vacuum box features into the invention of Kang et al, in view of Hsu, since both are directed to meat ageing systems, since Kang et al already included wet and dry ageing, since wet ageing was commonly conducted by using a vacuum box as shown by Hsu, and since plural vacuum boxes would have enabled different meat products to be aged simultaneously in the system of Kang et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the slaughter date, number of days since slaughter, and meat cut information to generate aging information, as well as the server function, into the invention of Kang et al, in view of Clemens and Beef Aging NPL, since all are directed to methods of processing meat products, since Kang et al already included requesting and receiving identification information from a server but simply did not mention slaughter date in particular, since Kang et al also disclosed that meat products having plural aging periods/stages over a number of days which result in different aging levels (paragraph 0108, 0110; Table 1; Figures 3 & 5) but simply did not mention the slaughter date as the start date, since meat processing systems commonly included obtaining the slaughter date information based on an identification information (abstract; Figure 3) as well as a server providing the slaughter information (page 2, line 20) as shown by Clemens, since meat aging naturally began when the animal was killed/slaughtered and enzyme-based autolysis immediately commenced in the carcass and meat parts, since using the slaughter date as the start date would have been the common and conventionally understood beginning of ageing due to this being the beginning of autolysis as described above, since slaughter date information would be important in meat ageing operations by permitting the user to accurately and precisely control the aging time period, since different cuts of meat were known to age at different rates, require different aging times, and attain different aging results over time based upon which cut of meat they are (page 2-3) as shown by Beef Aging NPL, and since compensating for slaughter date, number of days since slaughter, and meat cut information in the meat ageing system of Kang et al, in view of Clemens and Beef Aging NPL, would have enabled more accurate and precise control while also enabling improved product quality.
Applicant argues that the references do not disclose providing an ageing level for each stage/period of ageing. However, Kang et al disclose the meat products having plural aging periods/stages over a number of days which result in different aging levels (paragraph 0108, 0110; Table 1; Figures 3 & 5), a server control unit which generates meat ageing information using deep learning techniques and/or machine learning techniques (paragraph 0092).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al (US 9273897) disclose a meat ageing refrigerator which also includes subsequent storage, Lee (KR 20200047958A) discloses a meat ageing refrigerator linked to a smart device and server (Figure 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights