Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/291,273

CONTINUOUSLY OPERATED TEXTURIZING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 23, 2024
Examiner
PRESSLEY, PAUL DEREK
Art Unit
3725
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Plant Meat Makers B V
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
108 granted / 173 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
229
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 173 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 44-45, 48 and 54-55 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. Regarding claim 44, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 45 recites the limitations "the first inner wall section" in line 2 and “the second inner wall section” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 48 recites the limitation “the transportation device” in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Regarding claim 54, the phrase “further comprising optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 54 will be interpreted as not including the optionally recited claim limitation for examination purposes. Claim 55 recites the limitations "the upstream chamber segment” in line 5 and “the downstream chamber” in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. 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. Claims 39-49, 54-56 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0143644 A1 by Marangoni et al., hereinafter “Marangoni”. Regarding claim 39, Marangoni discloses a texturizing apparatus, configured to texturize a mass of viscoelastic foodstuff (apparatus 20 in Fig. 1A; ¶[0063]), the apparatus comprising: an outer member (38 in Fig. 1C), which defines an interior (42 in Fig. 1C), extending along a longitudinal axis between a first end and a second end (28 in Fig. 1A) and having a circular cross-section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1C shows 38 has a circular cross-section), an inner member (26 in Figs. 1A and 1C), which is arranged inside the interior (26 is arranged inside 38 in Fig. 1C), extending parallel to the longitudinal axis between the first end and the second end and having a circular cross-section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1A), wherein the outer member has an inner surface in the interior that faces an outer surface of the inner member to define a through annular texturizing chamber in between the inner member and the outer member, extending between the first end and the second end (channel 48 in Fig. 1C), and wherein the outer member and the inner member are configured to rotate with respect to each other about the longitudinal axis to subject the foodstuff material in the texturizing chamber to a simple shear flow (¶[0070] discloses both tubes may be rotate but the apparatus shown in Fig. 1A only rotates outer tube 38), wherein a shear gap of the texturizing chamber is defined as the radial spacing between the inner member and the outer member (channel 48 in Fig. 1C is defined by the radial spacing between 38 and 26), wherein the texturizing chamber comprises an upstream chamber segment (upstream chamber preselected length 69 in Fig. 2C; ¶[0068]) and a downstream chamber segment (downstream chamber preselected length 65 in Fig. 2C), and wherein the texturizing apparatus further comprises: a cooling device, provided at the downstream chamber segment of the texturizing chamber and configured to only cool the downstream chamber segment of the texturizing chamber (water jacket 64 in Fig. 2C cools only downstream chamber preselected length 65). Marangoni does not expressly disclose the shear gap between outer member 38 and inner member 26 is in the range between 10 mm and 50 mm. But paragraphs [0080] through [0091] teach the shear gap between the tubes is determined by the crystallization time required for the particular foodstuff being texturized by the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the gap between outer member 38 and inner member 28 to be within the range of 10 mm and 50 mm when the particular foodstuff being texturized requires crystallization time which dictates a shear gap within the recited range. Regarding claim 40, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses a heat transfer device (54 in Fig. 1A) provided at the upstream chamber segment of the texturizing chamber. See water jacket 68 in Fig. 2C within upstream chamber preselected length 69 and its written description at paragraph [0068]. Paragraph [0065] states heat transfer subassembly 54 is preferably used for cooling. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use water jacket 68 as a heating device to achieve the predictable result of configuring only the upstream chamber of the apparatus with a heating device. Regarding claim 41, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. When water jacket 68 of heat transfer device 54 in Fig. 1A is used as only a heating device, Marangoni’s apparatus 20 is free of a cooling device in upstream chamber preselected length 69. Regarding claim 42, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses the inner member (26 in Figs. 1A and 1C) is substantially hollow, defining an inner member interior (36 in Fig. 1C; ¶[0063]). Regarding claim 43, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses the outer member (38 in Fig. 1C) comprises: a first outer wall section, extending between the first end and a transition section, located in between the first end and the second end (the outer wall section of tube 38 to the right of engagement pulley 63 in Fig. 2A which may reasonably be interpreted as a transition section; ¶[0079]), and a second outer wall section, extending between the transition section and the second end (the outer wall section of tube 38 to the left of engagement pulley 63 in Fig. 2A), wherein the upstream chamber segment is defined between the first outer wall section and the inner member (upstream chamber preselected length 69 in Fig. 2C is defined between the first outer wall section of tube 38 to the right of pulley 63), and wherein the downstream chamber segment is defined between the second outer wall section and the inner member (downstream chamber preselected length 65 in Fig. 2C is defined between the second outer wall section of tube 38 to the left of pulley 63), wherein the first outer wall section has a first inner diameter (inner diameter 40 in Fig. 1C; ¶[0063]) and wherein the second outer wall section has a second inner diameter (inner diameter 40 in Fig. 1C). Regarding claim 44, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 43 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses the inner member comprises: a first inner wall section, facing the first outer wall section to define the upstream chamber segment (the inner wall section of tube 26 in preselected length 69 in Fig. 2C), and a second inner wall section, facing the second outer wall section to define the downstream chamber segment (the inner wall section of tube 26 in preselected length 64 in Fig. 2C), wherein the first inner wall section has a first outer diameter and wherein the second inner wall section has a second outer diameter (each of the first and second sections have an outer diameter), and wherein the inner member for example comprises a separation wall in between the first inner wall section and the second inner wall section (see “Separation Wall” annotation to a portion of Fig. 2C of Marangoni reproduced below), aligned substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and configured to subdivide the inner member interior in a first inner member interior and a second inner member interior. PNG media_image1.png 541 1548 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 45, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 43 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses the heating device is provided in the first outer wall section and in the first inner wall section (heat transfer device water jacket 68 in Fig. 2C is provided in the first wall section of outer tube 38 and inner tube 26 to the right of pulley 63), and wherein the cooling device is provided in the second outer wall section and in the second inner wall section (water jacket 64 in Fig. 2C is provided in the second wall section of outer tube 38 and inner tube 26 to the left of pulley 63). Regarding claim 46, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses an entrance opening, located at the first end, in direct fluid contact with the upstream chamber segment and configured to provide access to the texturizing chamber for the mass of foodstuff material (entrance opening input 50 in Fig. 1A; ¶[0063]), and a discharge port, located at the second end, in direct fluid contact with the downstream chamber segment and configured to allow discharge of texturized foodstuff material from the texturizing chamber (discharge port output 52 in Fig. 1A; ¶[0063]). Regarding claim 47, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses the outer member is configured to be held stationary, and wherein the inner member is configured to be rotated with respect to the outer member. Paragraph [0070] teaches either of tubes 26 or 38 may be configured to be rotatable relative to the other which may be held stationary. Regarding claim 48, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 47 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0005] of Marangoni teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a transportation device in the form of an auger extending spirally over the outer surface of the inner member defining an unobstructed spiral path through the texturizing chamber. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of paragraph [0005] to the apparatus shown in the figures to achieve the predictable result of Marangoni’s apparatus with an auger transportation device extending over the inner member as paragraph [0005] teaches. Regarding claim 49, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 47 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses a transportation device (pump 39 in Fig. 3) is configured to axially displace the foodstuff material through the texturizing chamber under influence of a pressure difference between the first end and the second end. Pump 39 pumps fluid 21 through apparatus 20 to create a pressure difference between input 50 and output 52 which transports the fluid through channel 48. See paragraphs [0063] and [0069]. Regarding claim 54, Marangoni discloses a food production device (Fig. 3; ¶[0069]), configured to form foodstuff products from a mass of viscoelastic foodstuff material, the food production device comprising, the texturizing apparatus according to claim 39 (20 in Fig. 3; see the rejection of claim 39 above), a feeding device, connected to the entrance opening and configured to feed the foodstuff material into the texturizing chamber (feeding device pump 29 in Fig. 3; ¶[0069]), and a mixing device, located upstream of the feeding device and configured to mix ingredients of the foodstuff material (mixing device 37 in Fig. 3; ¶[0069]). Regarding claim 55, Marangoni discloses a method of texturizing a mass of viscoelastic foodstuff material (fluid 21 in Figs. 1B and 2B is texturized into mass oriented film 24 in Fig. 2A; ¶[0063] and [0064]), comprising the steps of: feeding the foodstuff material in a texturizing chamber (fluid 21 in Figs. 1B and 2B is feed to texturizing chamber channel 48), subjecting the foodstuff material to a simple shear flow by applying shear stresses on the foodstuff material in the upstream chamber segment of the texturizing chamber (¶[0063] discloses the material is subject to laminar shear in upstream chamber preselected length 69 in Fig. 2C), cooling the foodstuff material in the downstream chamber segment of the texturizing chamber to increase the viscosity of the foodstuff material (the food stuff material is cooled by water jacket 64 in downstream chamber preselected length 65 in Fig. 2C; ¶[0067] and [0068]), and discharging the texturized foodstuff material from the texturizing chamber (Fig. 2A shows the material is discharged as oriented film 24 from texturizing chamber channel 48). Regarding claim 56, Marangoni renders the method of claim 55 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further teaches the step of subjecting the foodstuff material to a simple shear flow by applying shear stresses on the foodstuff material in the downstream chamber segment of the texturizing chamber during at least part of the step of cooling (one or both of tubes 26 and 38 are rotated to apply shear stress to the material in downstream chamber preselected length 65 as it is being cooled by water jacket 64)., and further comprising Marangoni does not expressly disclose heating the foodstuff material in the upstream chamber segment of the texturizing chamber to decrease the viscosity of the foodstuff material. Although paragraph [0066] discloses heat transfer at varying rates and the diagram in Fig. 2C shows the material retains much of its heat in upstream chamber preselected length 69. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use water jacket 68 in upstream chamber preselected length 69 as a heating device to decrease the viscosity of the material in that section when the material being texturized requires decreased viscosity at the beginning of the texturizing process. Regarding claim 58, Marangoni renders the method of claim 55 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses the texturizing chamber is defined between an outer member, which defines an interior, and an inner member, which is arranged inside the interior of the outer member (Fig. 1C shows texturizing chamber channel 48 is defined between outer member 38 with interior 42 and inner member 26 with outer surface 32), wherein the outer member is held stationary and wherein the inner member is rotated with respect to the outer member about a longitudinal axis to subject the foodstuff material in the texturizing chamber to the simple shear flow (¶[0070] teaches either of tubes 26 or 38 may be configured to be rotatable relative to the other which may be held stationary). Claims 50-52 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangoni in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,373,434 to Alexander et al., hereinafter “Alexander”. Regarding claim 50, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. However, Marangoni does not disclose the discharge port comprises an adjustable aperture, configured to adjust a cross-sectional area of the discharge port. In the same field of food extrusion apparatus, Alexander teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an adjustable aperture discharge port configured to adjust a cross-sectional area of the discharge port. Needles 17 in Fig. 1 are moved in and out of discharge port orifices 15 to adjust their cross-sectional area. See column 2, line 22-56. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adjustable discharge port at output end 52 of Marangoni’s apparatus 20 to control the dwell time of the material within the apparatus in the same way Alexander teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Alexander to the apparatus of Marangoni would achieve the predictable result of fitting Marangoni’s apparatus with an adjustable discharge port. Regarding claim 51, the prior art reference combination of Marangoni in view of Alexander renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 50 unpatentable as explained above. Alexander further teaches: one or more temperature sensors located in the texturizing chamber and configured to emit a sensor signal representative for the temperature in the texturizing chamber (temperature sensor 22 in Fig. 1; col. 2, line 48-56); a control unit, configured to control the adjustable aperture on the basis of the measured temperature and/or pressure level in the texturizing chamber (col. 2, line 57-61 discloses a control unit system is used to receive signals from sensors of the apparatus and control parts of the apparatus based upon the received signals). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the temperature sensor and control unit of Alexander into Marangoni’s apparatus to provide means for controlling adjustment of the adjustable discharge port when Alexander’s adjustable discharge port is incorporated as explained in the rejection of claim 50 above. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Alexander to the apparatus of Marangoni would achieve the predictable result of providing control to the adjustable discharge port. Regarding claim 52, the prior art reference combination of Marangoni in view of Alexander renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 51 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni further discloses apparatus 20 includes controller 47 in Fig. 3 which controls motor 45 that rotates outer tube 38. See paragraph [0071]. However, Marangoni does not expressly disclose controller 47 controls heat transfer subassembly 54 which includes water jackets 64, 66 and 68 in Fig. 2C. But paragraphs [0073] through [0077] teach temperature within apparatus 20 is controlled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention either controller 47 or another controller is used to control water jacket 68 as a heating device and water jacket 64 as a cooling device. Regarding claim 57, Marangoni renders the method of claim 55 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni does not disclose the step of discharging comprises the adjusting of a cross-sectional area of the discharge port on the basis of a measured temperature and pressure level in the texturizing chamber. In the same field of food extrusion apparatus, Alexander teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an adjustable aperture discharge port configured to adjust a cross-sectional area of the discharge port. Needles 17 in Fig. 1 are moved in and out of discharge port orifices 15 to adjust their cross-sectional area. See column 2, line 22-56. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adjustable discharge port at output end 52 of Marangoni’s apparatus 20 to control the dwell time of the material within the apparatus by an adjustment method step in the same way Alexander teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Alexander to the apparatus of Marangoni would achieve the predictable result of fitting Marangoni’s apparatus with an adjustable discharge port. Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangoni in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,939,124 to Wenger, hereinafter “Wenger”. Regarding claim 53, Marangoni renders the texturizing apparatus of claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Marangoni does not disclose at least part of the inner surface of the outer member and at least part of the outer surface of the inner member comprises a corrugated surface. In the same field of food extruding apparatus, Wenger teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to corrugate the inner surface of the food extruders outer member (ribs 200 in Fig. 4) and to corrugate the outer surface of the extruders inner member (helical flighting 220 in Fig. 4). See column 8, line 59-65. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate corrugated surfaces into the inner and outer members of Marangoni’s apparatus 20 in the same way Wenger teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Wegner to the apparatus of Marangoni would achieve the predictable result of Marangoni’s apparatus with corrugated surfaces on the inner and outer members. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern. 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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. /P.D.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 23, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599910
CONFIGURABLE, COMPACT, MULTI-VARIANT RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FRAGMENTATION APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594593
PRODUCTION METHOD FOR RING-ROLLED MATERIAL OF Fe-Ni-BASED SUPERALLOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582995
MACERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559956
REBAR TYING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12521786
METHOD FOR MACHINING A METAL CAST STRAND OF ROUND CROSS-SECTION BY REDUCING THE CROSS-SECTION IN THE FINAL SOLIDIFICATION REGION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+22.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 173 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month