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 1, claims 43-60 in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 61-62 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claim limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“Food product assembly unit” in claim 43
“Food product cooking unit” in claim 43
“heating element” in claim 50
“robotic assembly” in claim 55
“multiplicity of heating elements arranged in an array form” claim 50
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are as follows:
“Raw material metering and mixing unit” in claim 43. The specification at page 25, figure 4 describes metering units 203 and mixing unit 202. However, the specification is silent to the structure necessary to perform the claimed function of metering and mixing.
“Food product assembly unit” in claim 43. The specification is silent to the structure necessary to perform the claimed function of product assembly.
“Food product cooking unit” in claim 43. The specification at page 7 specifies that the product priming unit can be a food product cooking unit which can be a hearing lamp.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 43-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 43 has includes the following limitations interpreted under 112f but the specification fails to provide support that applicant had possession of the structure capable of performing the claimed functions. The limitations are, “raw material metering and mixing unit” and “food product assembly unit”.
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 43-60 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 limitation “raw material metering and mixing unit” and “food product assembly unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation "(below 25-30oC)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if limitation in parenthesis is intended to define the range of what is considered room temperature.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation "being optionally heated" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if the deposition surface must be capable of providing heat.
Regarding claim 56, the limitation "the raw materials" renders the claim indefinite because it is lacks antecedent basis in claim 43. Further, it is unclear if the raw materials are intended to be a positively recited part of the claimed system.
Regarding claim 57, the limitations "allergen free, low-salt, and product suitable for diabetics" are relative terms. It is unclear what would specifically be required to meet the limitations. For example, how much salt would be low salt, or what would constitute a product suitable for diabetics.
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 43, 45-47, 49, 52-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Contractor et al. (PGPub# US 2016/0106142 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Contractor teaches a digital manufacturing system unit (figure 1, abstract) for manufacturing a food product, the system unit being a non-partitioned system unit (figure 1) comprising a raw material metering (par. 27, 28: 314, 325) and mixing unit (401), a food product assembly unit (501) and a food product cooking unit (par. 37, figure 5, 507), the system unit being configured and operable to receive one or more customer-specified requirement relating to a food product profile and execute a set of machine instructions specifying a manufacturing process suitable for manufacturing the food product based on the food product profile (par 20-21, 35, and 51: System can be programmed to run instructions to match a recipe for an intended cooked final product.), thereby manufacturing the food product, wherein the raw material metering and mixing unit comprises a plurality of stationary raw material canisters (figure 3, cartridges 304), each being in material communication with one or more mixing containers or with a printing head or deposition tool (figure 1, cartridges in communication with mixing container 401 or deposition tool 501. (par. 26-28)
Regarding claim 45, Contractor teaches wherein each of the plurality of stationary raw material canisters is a pre-filled disposable canister. (par. 25)
Regarding claim 46, Contractor teaches wherein each of the plurality of stationary raw material canisters is equipped or associated with a decanting mechanism (324, 329) operable to permit uninterrupted flow of raw materials therefrom. (par. 27 and 28)
Regarding claim 47, Contractor teaches wherein the food product assembly unit comprises a deposition tool 501 configured for linear motion or a rotational motion onto a deposition surface, being optionally heated. (par. 35: Unit provides for x-y-z movement to 3d print foods.)
Regarding claim 49, Contractor teaches wherein the product cooking unit is configured for receiving the food product and treating same to endow it with final desired characteristics. wherein the cooking unit comprises an element selected from a heating body, or a heating surface. (figure 5, par. 35-37)
Regarding claim 52, Contractor teaches wherein the cooking unit comprises a heating assembly comprising two heating surfaces, one being a top heating surface 506 and the other a bottom heating surface 507, configured to receive the food product therebetween. wherein position of either the top surface or the bottom surface is modified such that the product is in contact with the bottom heating surface or with both surfaces. (par. 34-37: enclosed space forms oven)
Regarding claim 53, Contractor teaches comprising a deposition surface in a form of a moving bed or a tray. (par. 35)
Regarding claim 54, Contractor teaches wherein the deposition surface is configured and operable to move below the deposition tool. (figure 5, par. 35)
Regarding claim 55, Contractor teaches the system unit comprising a robotic assembly 600 configured to clear the deposition surface or the heating surface. (figure 6, par. 38)
Regarding claim 56, Contractor teaches wherein the raw materials are selected from proteins, fats, sugars, flavoring agents, coloring agents, salts, oils and other liquids, each of which being contained in a separate canister, or premixed and contained in mixed-material canisters. (figure 3, par. 25)
Regarding claim 57, Contractor teaches for manufacturing a product selected from a dairy product, an allergen free product, a vegan product, a vegetarian product, a low-salt product, a product suitable for diabetics, and a kosher product. (figure 3, par. 25)
Regarding claim 58, Contractor teaches comprising computer software and a user interface. (par. 20-21)
Regarding claim 59, Contractor teaches wherein the user interface is in a form of a computer or a device capable of accessing a network. (par. 20-21)
Regarding claim 60, Contractor teaches wherein the device is a notebook, a desktop, a laptop, a tablet, a wireless communication device, a personal digital cellular terminal, a personal handphone system terminal, a smartphone, or a wearable device. (par. 20-21)
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contractor et al. (PGPub# US 2016/0106142 A1) in view of Albert et al. (PGPub# US 2018/0338519 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Contractor teaches that temperatures above room temperature impacts the nutrient stability of the raw materials.
Contractor does not explicitly teach wherein the raw material metering and mixing unit is refrigerated or maintained at a temperature below room temperature (below 25-30° C.).
However, Albert teaches a device for printing food. (abstract) Albert teaches keeping the raw materials in a temperature controlled unit such as a refrigerator can extend the storage life of the food. (par. 34)
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 added the temperature controlled unit of Albert, to contain the raw materials of Contractor, in order to extend the storage life of the food as taught by Albert.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contractor et al. (PGPub# US 2016/0106142 A1) in view of Kuo et al. (PGPub# US 2016/0135493 A1).
Regarding claim 48, Contractor teaches wherein the deposition surface has the freedom to move in all directions relative to the deposition tool. (par. 35)
Contractor does not explicitly teach that the deposition tool also moves in all directions.
However, Kuo teaches a similar food 3d printing apparatus. (abstract) Kuo teaches that the deposition head can also be moved in all directions with respect to the deposition surface. (par. 60-62).
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 added the movement system of Kuo, to the system of Contractor, as it simply adds an additional movement mechanism for redundant control of movement in the 3d printing operation.
Claims 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contractor et al. (PGPub# US 2016/0106142 A1) in view of Noble et al. (PGPub# US 2022/0241867 A1).
Regarding claims 50 and 51, Contractor does not explicitly teach that the cooking unit comprises a surface with a multiplicity of heating elements arranged in an array form (claim 50), and wherein the array comprises multiple individually addressable heating elements, each of the elements may be same or different. (claim 51)
However, Noble teaches a similar 3d printing apparatus. (abstract) Noble teaches that the heaters used to heat the deposition surface can be arranged in an array pattern and be individually addressable. Noble teaches that the setup is used in order to selectively heat regions of the build plate. (par. 95 and figure 7)
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 added the individually heated array of Noble, to the system of Contractor, in order to selectively heat regions of the build plate as taught by Noble.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights