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 I, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-31 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/16/2025.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 09/16/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-31 remain pending in the application.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nielson (US2022/0287326).
Regarding claim 1, Nielsen teaches:
A discharge apparatus for texturing a food composition (Fig 1-2; [0058]), comprising
a first boundary member having a first texturing surface (Fig 2: stationary discs 1, 2; [0058-0059]),
a second boundary member having a second texturing surface (Fig 2, 6-7: rotary paddle wheel 3, spokes 32; [0058-0059, 0067]),
a gap formed between the first texturing surface and the second texturing surface (Fig 2; [0059]),
at least one feed opening for continuously feeding the food composition into the gap (Fig 1-2: inlet opening 4; [0058]), and
at least one discharge opening for continuously discharging the food composition from the gap (Fig 2; [0059, 0063]),
wherein the first boundary member and the second boundary member are rotatably drivable relative to each other about an axis of rotation (Fig 2; [0059-0060]), and wherein the first texturing surface and the second texturing surface each extend radially to the axis of rotation between the at least one feed opening and the at least one discharge opening (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 2, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches wherein the food composition is a meat substitute composition ([0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches wherein at least one of the first texturing surface and the second texturing surface extend at an angle b to the axis of rotation, wherein 45°< b < 90° (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches wherein the first texturing surface and the second texturing surface run parallel to one another (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches wherein the at least one discharge opening has a greater distance to the axis of rotation than the at least one feed opening (Fig 2; [0058-0059, 0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches wherein the at least one discharge opening is formed for discharging the food composition in the direction radial to the axis of rotation (Fig 2; [0059, 0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
Nielson further teaches wherein the at least one discharge opening is formed circumferentially between the first boundary member and the second boundary member (Fig 2; [0059, 0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches at least one wiper device in the region of the at least one discharge opening (Fig 6-7: cleats 34; [0067]).
Regarding claim 11, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches at least one texturing tool arranged in the gap (Fig 6-7: cleats 34, 37; [0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Nielson further teaches wherein the at least one texturing tool is detachably arranged at least one of at the first boundary member and at the second boundary member ([0061, 0067-0068, 0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 13, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches a temperature control unit for temperature control of at least one of the first boundary member and the second boundary member ([0062, 0079]).
Regarding claim 14, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
Nielson further teaches wherein the temperature control unit controls the temperature of a temperature control region of at least one of the first texturing surface and of the second texturing surface wherein the temperature control region has a temperature control area ([0062, 0079]).
Nielson does not explicitly recite a temperature control area Ak for which applies: 40 cm2/(kg/h) ≤ Ak/m ≤ 1,000 cm2/(kg/h), wherein m is the hourly flow rate of the food composition in kilograms.
However, the examiner notes that the above limitation is recited as functional language and conditionally based on the operational parameter of the flow rate of the food composition. Therefore the above limitation is considered to be a mode of operation rather than an explicit recitation of structure. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. Nielson teaches a control system that monitors and controls various parameters, including flow-rate, pressure, rotation and temperature ([0079]) and would therefore be capable of performing the claimed functions. Furthermore, since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 15, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
Nielson further teaches wherein the temperature control unit is designed for different temperature control of different temperature control subregions of at least one of the first texturing surface and of the second texturing surface ([0062, 0079]).
Regarding claim 17, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches wherein at least one of the first texturing surface and the second texturing surface have a surface profiling (Fig 6-7: cleats 34, 37; [0067-0068]).
Regarding claim 18, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Nielson further teaches wherein at least one of the first texturing surface and the second texturing surface have a corrugation (Fig 6-7: cleats 34, 37; [0067-0068]).
Regarding claim 19, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches at least one supply line for continuously supplying the food composition to the at least one feed opening ([0065-0066]).
Regarding claim 20, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches at least one additional access opening for at least one of the admixture of further ingredients and for monitoring the food composition (Fig 1-2: inlet opening 4; [0058, 0079]).
Regarding claim 21, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson further teaches:
A facility for the production of a food composition ([0065]), comprising:
at least one preparation apparatus for continuously preparing the food composition ([0065]) and
a discharge apparatus for texturing the food composition according to claim 1 ([0065]; see art rejection of claim 1),
wherein at least one outlet opening of the at least one preparation apparatus is connected to the at least one feed opening of the discharge apparatus ([0065]).
Regarding claim 22, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
Nielson further teaches wherein the food composition is a meat substitute composition ([0002]).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Breel et al. (US2022/0369686) hereinafter Breel.
Regarding claim 5, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nielson does not teach wherein a gap dimension of the gap changes depending on a distance to the axis of rotation.
In the same field of endeavor regarding texturizing apparatus, Breel teaches a rotating texturizing surface having a cone shape that forms a corresponding gap dimension that changes depending on a distance to the axis of rotation for the motivation of displacing the foodstuff material sideways (Fig 1: end portion 25; [0136-0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second boundary member as taught by Nielson to have a cone shaped cross-section as taught by Breel in order to displace the foodstuff material sideways.
Regarding claim 6, Nielson in view of Breel teaches the apparatus of claim 5.
Breel further teaches wherein the gap dimension of the gap increases with growing distance to the axis of rotation (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Dieker et al. (US2018/0168189) hereinafter Dieker.
Regarding claim 16, Nielson teaches the apparatus of claim 15.
Nielson further teaches wherein the temperature control unit is designed for temperature control of at least one of the first texturing surface and of the second texturing surface ([0062, 0079]).
Nielson does not teach wherein the temperature control unit is designed for temperature control of at least one of the first texturing surface and of the second texturing surface in dependence on a distance from the axis of rotation.
In the same field of endeavor regarding texturizing apparatus, Dieker teaches an extruder having a an exterior heating/cooling jacket and a number of separately controllable temperature zones for forming a temperature gradient along the axis of extrusion for the motivation of facilitating the expansion of the extrudates obtained after their exiting the extruder ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature control unit as taught by Nielson with the temperature gradient along the axis of extrusion as taught by Dieker in order to facilitate the expansion of the extrudates obtained after their exiting the extruder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights