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
Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/19/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant cancelled claims 17-21 and added new claims 22-26. Thus, claims 1-16 and 22-26 are pending and elected for examination.
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.
Claims 23-25 are 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. Claims 23-25 depend from claim 22 which requires partially drying the mass until the mass has a post wet basis moisture content greater than 66 percent and less than 90 percent. Claims 23-25 each set for different parameters for partially drying but do not clearly indicate that the partial drying must meet a threshold as laid out by claim 22 as greater than 66 percent and less than 90 percent. Thus, the claims do not clearly include all the limitations from which they depend. In other words, for example, claim 23 states that partially drying comprises drying the mass until the cell mass measures a predetermined threshold mass based on the initial mass. This does not limit the final moisture of the mass to that which is required by claim 22 and instead recites an undefined threshold mass which is not clearly tied to the moisture content of claim 22. The same analysis applies to the undefined amount of time based on the initial mass of claim 25. Claim 24 is included as it does not impose the range required by claim 22 either. 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “determining the threshold mass based on the initial mass of the comestible cell-based meat product, a measured or learned pre-drying moisture-to-solid-content ratio of the comestible cell-based meat product, and an estimated post-drying moisture-to-solid-content ratio of the comestible cell-based meat product” and “determining the threshold mass of the comestible cell-based meat is based on multiplying the initial mass of the comestible cell- based meat product by a quotient of 1 minus an estimated pre-drying moisture content wet basis and 1 minus a measured or learned post-drying moisture content wet basis of the comestible cell- based meat product”. The equation of claim 16 is represented in the specification as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 specifies the formula whereas claim 14 merely recites what the threshold is “based on” and recites the three same concepts represented in the above formula. The equation is a mathematical formula for establishing the threshold mass based upon a calculation with estimated pre and post moisture-to-solid content ratios and an initial mass and the list of concepts is cited as a relationship. Moreover, both the relationship (claim 14) and the formula (claim 16) encompasses a human performing the steps mentally, thus a mental process is considered to be present based upon the term “determining”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea (formula or relationship) and data gathering (initial mass) but does not go beyond merely applying it or implementing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited limitations of measuring is merely data gathering and the step of applying a vacuum and refrigeration temperature are routine and conventional activities known in the industry and are recited at a high level of generality. Additionally, the formula is generally linked to a particular technological environment or field of use. While claim 15 imposes values, the claim still encompasses the above noted abstract idea, thus the analysis is seen to pertain to this claim as well.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4619054 (Sato) (cited on IDS filed 01/25/2024). Sato discloses inserting a comestible cell-based meat into a vacuum apparatus and at least partially drying the meat at cool temperatures under vacuum. The vacuum may be in the range of 1Torr-20Torr and cooling is -5C to -20C (col. 3, lines 43-54). It is noted that the instant specification states that the term “refrigeration temperature” refers to a cooled temperature that is above the freezing point of water. However, the specification also states “Alternatively, the refrigeration temperature may refer to between -2 degrees Celsius to 15 degrees Celsius”. It is conventionally understood that water freezes at 0C, but the specification opens the term “refrigeration temperature” up by giving an example of -2C. Thus, the specification is not seen to impart a clear definition to the limitation and as such, the -5C is considered a “refrigeration temperature” inasmuch as the term is defined. The limitation “until the comestible cell-based meat product satisfies a moisture content criteria” is considered met by the fact that Sato discloses that “when the moisture content of the meat is reduced to a certain level, the operation enters into a decreasing rate drying stage”, thus disclosing a moisture content criterion (col. 3, lines 64-67). Sato also states “when the meat is dried to the desired degree, the temperature regulator 34 automatically turns off the power supply to the infrared ray plate heaters 4A through 4D” followed by turning off the vacuum pump and the refrigerator power source and opening the door of the vacuum chamber for removing the dried meat therefrom (col. 9, lines 3-15). Thus, the meat is dried to a desired degree (which includes partial drying) which means a moisture content (level of dryness) has been reached.
Regarding claim 8, the dry meat of Sato can be restored to fresh meat which is considered raw meat and also discloses that the dry meat may be vacuum packed, thus indicating that the product is configured for packaging and is refreshable as raw meat (col. 1, lines 50-57; col. 9, lines 40-42).
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4942053 (Franklin).
Franklin discloses a process of treating meat by removing water (dehydrating) using a vacuum to lower the temperature of the tumbler (chamber). The temperature is around 32-40F and the vacuum is in a range of 740-2 Torr as shown in Examples 1-6. Franklin discloses that the system evaporates moisture on a predictable basis and the desired final weight can be predicted (col. 5, lines 63-66). Franklin also weighs the meat before and after drying (Examples 1-6), thus also indicating that an initial weight may be taken and a later weight taken to determine the moisture loss.
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) 2-4, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4619054 (Sato) alone, or alternatively further in view of US 2020/0370830 (Purdon) (both cited on IDS filed 01/25/2024).
Sato discloses vacuum drying under refrigerator conditions as disclosed above and also discloses that the dry meat weight in each of the Examples was about one third of that before drying (col. 4, lines 66-68). This indicates that mass may be used as a measure of satisfying the level of dryness obtained (moisture content criteria). It also indicates that the meat was weighed before and after drying. It would have been obvious to use the initial mass of the meat and a measured mass after drying or during drying to determine if a threshold mass, such as 1/3 the weight of the initial mass, has been reached as an indication of the moisture and level of dryness obtained as suggested by Sato. The amount of time taken to reach the desired mass would be the predetermined time.
Alternatively, Purdon discloses a system for drying an organic material where sensing equipment includes load cells configured to measure a mass of the organic material in the chamber and detect that the mass of the organic material has decreased to a target level [0015]. Thus, Purdon demonstrates that it is known in the art to take an initial mass before drying and detect whether the mass has reached a target level (threshold), thus obviating using such a measurement in the process of Sato to determine the whether the desired level of dryness has been reached.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4619054 (Sato) (cited on IDS filed 01/25/2024) in view of US 2022/0079194 (Li).
Regarding the bioreactor recited in claims 6 and 22, Sato discloses the method of drying a meat product as discussed above but does not disclose harvesting the meat from a bioreactor and a pre-drying moisture content ratio and post-drying content ratio. Li discloses extruded food products comprising cultivated animal cells and plant protein obtained from a bioreactor (Figure 1). The extruded food product of Li may be a cultured meat product [0005] and may have an initial water content of 1-99% [0050]. The cultured meat may be harvested from the bioreactor and subject to “dewatering” which is considered dehydration [0088]. Li discloses that the extrudate may be dried using conventional or convection ovens or other drying methods to a desired moisture content [0255] and that the cultivated animal cells can be dried using vacuum [0151]. It would have been obvious to dry the cultured meat of Li by using the method of Sato with a reasonable expectation of successfully drying the meat product for later rehydration as Sato discloses a method useful for drying meat products. Regarding the extent of drying, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to dry to any desired moisture level as indicated by Li depending upon the cellular material and the desired level of dryness for the formed product. Li discloses concentration of the cells by dewatering, thus the desired concentration or density of the product would be taken into account in determining the desired level of moisture after drying.
Regarding claims 22-25, Sato discloses vacuum drying under refrigerator conditions as disclosed above and also discloses that the dry meat weight in each of the Examples was about one third of that before drying (col. 4, lines 66-68). This indicates that mass may be used as a measure of satisfying the level of dryness obtained (moisture content criteria). It also indicates that the meat was weighed before and after drying. It would have been obvious to use the initial mass of the meat and a measured mass after drying or during drying to determine if a threshold mass, such as 1/3 the weight of the initial mass, has been reached as an indication of the moisture and level of dryness obtained as suggested by Sato. It would have been obvious to repeat the weighing of the mass until the desired weight is obtained as indicative of the level of moisture removed.
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Li discloses the addition of peptide cross-linking agents which are considered protein binders [0151] and are added to a dry ingredient mixture thus indicating the obviousness of adding the binder when the material may be dry.
Claim(s) 5, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4619054 (Sato) alone, or alternatively further in view of US 2020/0370830 (Purdon) (both cited on IDS filed 01/25/2024) as applied to claims 4, and 11 above, and further in view of US 4942053 (Franklin).
Sato does not disclose a predetermined amount of time based on a learned rate of moisture removal associated with drying. Franklin discloses a process of treating meat by removing water using a vacuum to lower the temperature of the tumbler (chamber). The temperature is around 32-40F and the vacuum is in a range of 740-2 Torr as shown in Examples 1-6. Franklin discloses that the system evaporates moisture on a predictable basis and the desired final weight can be predicted (col. 5, lines 63-66). Franklin also weighs the meat before and after drying (Examples 1-6), thus also indicating that an initial weight may be taken and a later weight taken to determine the moisture loss. It would have been obvious to estimate/determine the amount of time needed based upon the parameters (mass of meat, temperature and pressure as indicated by Franklin since the process of using a vacuum with cooling evaporates moisture on a predictable basis.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4619054 (Sato) alone, or alternatively further in view of US 2020/0370830 (Purdon) (both cited on IDS filed 01/25/2024) and US 4942053 (Franklin) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2022/0079194 (Li).
Sato and Franklin do not disclose harvesting from a bioreactor or the pre and post moisture and solid ratio. Li discloses extruded food products comprising cultivated animal cells and plant protein obtained from a bioreactor (Figure 1). The extruded food product of Li may be a cultured meat product [0005] and may have an initial water content of 1-99% [0050]. The cultured meat may be harvested from the bioreactor and subject to “dewatering” which is considered dehydration [0088]. Li discloses that the extrudate may be dried using conventional or convection ovens or other drying methods to a desired moisture content [0255] and that the cultivated animal cells can be dried using vacuum [0151]. It would have been obvious to dry the cultured meat of Li by using the method of Sato with a reasonable expectation of successfully drying the meat product for later rehydration as Sato discloses a method useful for drying meat products. Regarding the extent of drying, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to dry to any desired moisture level as indicated by Li depending upon the cellular material and the desired level of dryness for the formed product. Li discloses concentration of the cells by dewatering, thus the desired concentration or density of the product would be taken into account in determining the desired level of moisture after drying.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4619054 (Sato) (cited on IDS filed 01/25/2024) in view of US 2020/0370830 (Purdon) (cited on IDS filed 01/25/2024).
Sato does not disclose using an amount of moisture evacuated or humidity reading as part of determining the moisture content of the mass. Purdon discloses humidity sensors may be present within the drying chamber and activating a fan creates convection to drive off moisture within the drying chamber, the humidity within the drying chamber may increase. The convection equipment, which may be configured to regulate the temperature and humidity of the drying chamber 106 in order to dry the organic materials 102 within the product container 104, may include a fan 118 and a heating device 120, and may be located within the drying chamber 106 [0062]. Information sent by the temperature and humidity sensors 124 is used by the system 100 for drying organic materials to regulate activation/deactivation cycles of the fan 118 and heating device 120 as performed during the drying mode [0072]. Because activating the fan creates convection to drive off moisture within the drying chamber, the humidity within the drying chamber may increase to a certain level (e.g., a threshold humidity level). Thus, as seen in check 606, the drying mode may proceed by checking whether a significant relative humidity rate of change has been achieved. If a significant rate of change is not taking place anymore, i.e., the humidity in the drying chamber is not increasing significantly, then the drying mode may proceed by deactivating the fan, as seen in step 608 [0097]. Still further, Purdon discloses that in an embodiment, before the vacuum pump 116 (or other suitable vacuum generating device) turns off, the control valve 114, along with one or more gas valves 112, may open to allow air or other gases into the drying chamber 106 while the relative humidity of the chamber drops as the extracted moisture from the organic materials 102 are evacuated from the drying chamber 106. Reaching a target mass or target moisture may signal the processor 130 when the process is complete [109]. It would have been obvious to use humidity sensors and moisture removal (evacuation) as disclosed by Purdon in the system of Sato in a similar manner to regulate drying and as parameters in determining whether the desired moisture content has been obtained. Also, Purdon discloses the memory may generally store programs, executable code, and data such as timing intervals and temperature, humidity, pressure, and mass ranges [0076].
Claim(s) 2-5, 8, 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4942053 (Franklin).
Franklin discloses evaporating water from meat by vacuum with low temperatures as discussed above but does not expressly disclose measuring an initial mass and drying until a threshold mass based on the initial mass satisfies the moisture content criteria. Franklin discloses that the system evaporates moisture on a predictable basis and the desired final weight can be predicted (col. 5, lines 63-66). Franklin also weighs the meat before and after drying (Examples 1-6), thus also indicating that an initial weight may be taken and a later weight taken to determine the moisture loss. It would have been obvious to estimate/determine the amount of time needed based upon the parameters (mass of meat, temperature and pressure as indicated by Franklin since the process of using a vacuum with cooling evaporates moisture on a predictable basis.
Regarding claim 8, Franklin does not expressly disclose packaging or configuring the meat to be packaged but packaging meat is well-known in the art in order to distribute the product to consumers and to preserve the product in storage. As such, configuring the meat to be packaged would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As the meat of Franklin is not required to be cooked, the meat would be considered raw.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 15, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4942053 (Franklin) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 2022/0079194 (Li).
Franklin does not disclose harvesting from a bioreactor or the pre and post moisture and solid ratio. Li discloses extruded food products comprising cultivated animal cells and plant protein obtained from a bioreactor (Figure 1). The extruded food product of Li may be a cultured meat product [0005] and may have an initial water content of 1-99% [0050]. The cultured meat may be harvested from the bioreactor and subject to “dewatering” which is considered dehydration [0088]. Li discloses that the extrudate may be dried using conventional or convection ovens or other drying methods to a desired moisture content [0255] and that the cultivated animal cells can be dried using vacuum [0151]. It would have been obvious to dry the cultured meat of Li by using the method of Franklin with a reasonable expectation of successfully drying the meat product as Franklin discloses a method useful for drying meat products. Regarding the extent of drying, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to dry to any desired moisture level as indicated by Li depending upon the cellular material and the desired level of dryness for the formed product. Li discloses concentration of the cells by dewatering, thus the desired concentration or density of the product would be taken into account in determining the desired level of moisture after drying.
Regarding claims 22-25, Franklin discloses vacuum drying under refrigerator conditions as disclosed above and also discloses that the weight of the mass before and after drying. This indicates that mass may be used as a measure of satisfying the level of dryness obtained (moisture content criteria). It also indicates that the meat was weighed before and after drying. It would have been obvious to use the initial mass of the meat and a measured mass after drying or during drying to determine if a threshold mass has been reached as an indication of the moisture and level of dryness obtained as suggested by Franklin. It would have been obvious to repeat the weighing of the mass until the desired weight is obtained as indicative of the level of moisture removed.
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Li discloses the addition of peptide cross-linking agents which are considered protein binders [0151] and are added to a dry ingredient mixture thus indicating the obviousness of adding the binder when the material may be dry.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4942053 (Franklin) in view of US 2020/0370830 (Purdon) (cited on IDS filed 01/25/2024).
Franklin does not disclose using an amount of moisture evacuated or humidity reading as part of determining the moisture content of the mass. Purdon discloses humidity sensors may be present within the drying chamber and activating a fan creates convection to drive off moisture within the drying chamber, the humidity within the drying chamber may increase. The convection equipment, which may be configured to regulate the temperature and humidity of the drying chamber 106 in order to dry the organic materials 102 within the product container 104, may include a fan 118 and a heating device 120, and may be located within the drying chamber 106 [0062]. Information sent by the temperature and humidity sensors 124 is used by the system 100 for drying organic materials to regulate activation/deactivation cycles of the fan 118 and heating device 120 as performed during the drying mode [0072]. Because activating the fan creates convection to drive off moisture within the drying chamber, the humidity within the drying chamber may increase to a certain level (e.g., a threshold humidity level). Thus, as seen in check 606, the drying mode may proceed by checking whether a significant relative humidity rate of change has been achieved. If a significant rate of change is not taking place anymore, i.e., the humidity in the drying chamber is not increasing significantly, then the drying mode may proceed by deactivating the fan, as seen in step 608 [0097]. Still further, Purdon discloses that in an embodiment, before the vacuum pump 116 (or other suitable vacuum generating device) turns off, the control valve 114, along with one or more gas valves 112, may open to allow air or other gases into the drying chamber 106 while the relative humidity of the chamber drops as the extracted moisture from the organic materials 102 are evacuated from the drying chamber 106. Reaching a target mass or target moisture may signal the processor 130 when the process is complete [109]. It would have been obvious to use humidity sensors and moisture removal (evacuation) as disclosed by Purdon in the system of Franklin in a similar manner to regulate drying and as parameters in determining whether the desired moisture content has been obtained. Also, Purdon discloses the memory may generally store programs, executable code, and data such as timing intervals and temperature, humidity, pressure, and mass ranges [0076].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793