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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “adjustment device” in claim 2. On page 14 of Applicant’s disclosure, adjustment device 37 includes an upstream base 37.1, a downstream base 37.2, and a spacing mechanism 37.3 which comprises one or a plurality of hydraulic or mechanical cylinders.
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 § 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breton (US 2023/0043707) in view of Maier (US 2005/0017412).
Regarding claim 1, Breton teaches a system for continuous preparation of an extruded food product (abstract), comprising: - a raw material that is rich in protein and water ([0008] [0045] [0066]), - a sleeve inside which at least one screw is driven so as to apply a thermomechanical treatment to the raw material (twin screw extruder includes twin screws inside a sleeve which feeds to die entrance 49, [0060] [0077-78]), and - a die for extrusion of a protein and water-rich material (die 10, abstract, Fig. 2), the die comprising:- an outer casing, which is tubular, being centered on an axis (exterior portion of insert 20 and excluding the portion shown before the end of the diverging part of flow path 23, ([0052-54], Fig. 2), and which has a frusto-conical inner face (face along flow path 23, [0052], Fig. 2), centered on the axis and divergent downstream (Figs. 2, 7), the outer casing being fixedly connected to the sleeve so that the material emerging from the sleeve is pushed by the at least one screw through the die (twin extruder sleeve connects so that material is pumped into die entrance 49, [0060] [0077-78]), and - an internal member, which is arranged coaxially inside the outer casing and mounted so as to rotate about the axis with respect to the outer casing (core 30, [0061]), and which includes both: - an upstream part, extending at least partially inside the outer casing and having a frusto-conical outer face, centered on the axis and diverging towards the downstream (portion of core 30 before the end of the bend in flow path 32 and excluding the most downstream portion before the bend, Fig. 2), and - a downstream part, extending outside the outer casing and coupled to a motorization suitable for rotating the internal member about the axis (leftmost portion of core 30, Fig. 2), wherein the outer casing and/or the upstream part of the internal member are thermally regulated ([0064]), wherein the frusto-conical inner face of the outer casing and the frusto-conical outer face of the internal member delimit therebetween a channel having an upstream end and a downstream end, which are opposite each other along the axis and between which the material flows in the channel, so that when the material is pushed through the die, the material advances through the channel from the upstream end to the downstream end through which the material exits outside of the outer casing (flow path 23, [0052] [0060], Fig. 2), wherein the sleeve includes, at the downstream end thereof, an end plate which internally delimits a through bore, centered on the axis and channeling the material pushed by the at least one screw out of the sleeve (connection feeding die entrance 49 begins/ends with a plate, [0060], Figs. 7-8), and wherein the system further includes a diffuser, which fixedly connects the end plate and the outer casing and which delimits a distribution chamber connecting the bore of the end plate and the upstream end of the channel (portion of core 20 that surrounds flow path 23 and connecting as claimed, Figs. 2, 7-8; Applicant’s Fig. 4 and claims recite separate components for the end plate, outer casing, and diffuser, thus differentiation from core 20 of Breton as being separable. It would have been obvious to make components in a food extruder separable because [0297] of Maier teaches that having a modular design enables modifications to be carried out easily and rapidly, see MPEP 2144(V)(C)), the distribution chamber being shaped so as to distribute the material emerging from the sleeve around the axis into the upstream end of the channel (flow path 23 as applied connects from just downstream of die entrance 49 to portion downstream of most upstream portion of core 30, Figs. 2, 7-8).
Regarding claim 2, Breton teaches wherein the die includes an adjustment device suitable for adjustably modifying a position of the internal member with respect to the outer casing along the axis (screw system constitutes a mechanical cylinder, in keeping with interpreting “adjustment device” with the invocation of 112f, [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Breton teaches wherein the outer casing is provided with thermoregulation means suitable for acting on the temperature of the material flowing in the channel by heat exchange with the frusto-conical inner face and for applying a temperature profile along the channel between the upstream and downstream ends of the channel (cooling means 24 in insert 20 thermoregulates material passing through flow path 23, [0052-53], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Breton teaches wherein the upstream part of the internal member is provided with thermoregulation means suitable for acting on the temperature of the material flowing in the channel by heat exchange with the frusto-conical outer face and for applying a temperature profile along the channel between the upstream and downstream ends of the channel (cooling means 25 in core 30 thermoregulates material passing through flow path 23, [0052-53], Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 5, Breton teaches wherein the outer casing comprises at least two separate modules, which delimit respective parts of the frusto-conical inner face and which follow one another in juxtaposition along the axis (Fig. 2, the distinction of claim 5 relative to insert 20 of Breton makes an integral structure separable and is therefore still obvious, see MPEP 2144(V)(C)).
Regarding claim 8, Breton teaches wherein the internal member comprises at least two separate modules, which delimit respective parts of the frusto-conical outer face and which follow one another in juxtaposition along the axis (Fig. 2, the distinction of claim 8 relative to core 30 of Breton makes an integral structure separable and is therefore still obvious, see MPEP 2144(V)(C))).
Regarding claim 12, Breton teaches wherein the frusto-conical inner face of the outer casing and the frusto-conical outer face of the internal member are parallel to each other from the upstream end to the downstream end of the channel (Figs. 2, 7-8 at least indicate a range overlapping with such a parallel spacing, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, Breton teaches wherein the frusto-conical inner face of the outer casing and the frusto-conical outer face of the internal member have respective angulations with respect to the axis which are different from each other at least over an axial part of the channel (Most upstream portion shows a curved core that thus has angulations as claimed, see Figs. 2, 7-8).
Regarding claim 14, Breton teaches wherein the distribution chamber is provided with a frusto-conical surface, which is centered on the axis and diverges downstream so as to connect an upstream part of the distribution chamber to the frusto-conical inner faceof the outer casing (Figs. 2, 7-8).
Regarding claim 15, Breton teaches wherein an upstream end of the upstream part of the internal member is at least partially arranged in the diffuser, delimiting, together with the diffuser, the distribution chamber (Figs. 2, 7-8).
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breton (US 2023/0043707) in view of Maier (US 2005/0017412) as applied to claims 5 and 7 above, respectively, and further in view of Bajema (US 2003/0091710).
Regarding claim 7, Breton teaches a system substantially as claimed. Breton does not disclose wherein the parts of the frusto-conical inner surface, delimited by the at least two modules, respectively, of the outer casing, are inclined with respect to the axis at respective angles which are different from each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor of rotating circular extrusion dies (abstract), Bajema teaches wherein the parts of the frusto-conical inner surface, delimited by the at least two modules, respectively, of the outer casing, are inclined with respect to the axis at respective angles which are different from each other (Fig. 5c).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Breton such that insert 20 and core 30 are inclined with respect to the axis as in Fig. 5c of Bajema because [0035] and Figs. 5a-c of Bajema teaches that adding a change in the angle is an art recognized equivalent with tradeoffs in pressure loss and torque required.
Regarding claim 11, Breton teaches a system substantially as claimed. Breton does not disclose wherein the parts of the frusto-conical outer face, delimited by the at least two modules, respectively, of the internal member, are inclined with respect to the axis at respective angles which are different from each other..
However, in the same field of endeavor of rotating circular extrusion dies (abstract), Bajema teaches wherein the parts of the frusto-conical outer face, delimited by the at least two modules, respectively, of the internal member, are inclined with respect to the axis at respective angles which are different from each other (Fig. 5c).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Breton such that insert 20 and core 30 are inclined with respect to the axis as in Fig. 5c of Bajema because [0035] and Figs. 5a-c of Bajema teaches that adding a change in the angle is an art recognized equivalent with tradeoffs in pressure loss and torque required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. These claims recite:
6. The system according to claim 5, wherein the at least two modules of the outer casing are thermally regulated independently of each other.
9. The system according to claim 8, wherein the at least two modules of the internal member are rotatable about the axis independently of each other.
10. The system according to claim 8, wherein the at least two modules (32.1, 32.2) of the internal member (32) are thermally regulated independently of each other.
The chief difference between the teachings of Breton and Applicant’s recited claims is the separation of the internal member and the outer casing into multiple, separable components instead of an integral structure. As noted above, regarding MPEP 2144.05(I), a difference of the claims reciting a structure with separable components are obvious over an integral structure. Each of claims 6 and 9-10, in some form recite structural differences between the separable portions of the internal member or the separable portions of the outer casing. Accordingly, the integral structure of Breton cannot teach or suggest these differences within the integral structure of core 20 and separately core 30 of Breton.
While Bajema teaches having the differences in portions as recited in claims 7 and 11, the available prior art does not provide a similar rationale for independent temperature regulation or independent core rotation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pibarot (US 2024/0188587), Breton (US 2024/0298670; US 2024/0349753), Harshe (US 2024/0324625), Shpaisman (US 2025/0000104) teaches subject matter similar to Breton (US 2023/0043707), cited above. Bajema (US 6,966,765) teaches subject matter similar to Bajema (US 2003/0091710), cited above
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744