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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 3/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups IV (claims 14-15) and V (claim 16) are product and use claims which do not require a materially different process or apparatus. This is not found persuasive because the method of group I is not limited to the product of Group IV. Namely, a gluten free product and more specifically a product containing a non-gluten containing proportion of plant protein which is distinct from method and thus the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product. With respect to group V, group V is limited by gluten-free long-life or fresh baked goods where group I is not limited by gluten-free and further encompasses pasta product. In addition Group V further claims “as a result of protein denaturation”, not required of group I, a product in thermally stabilized form. Thus the process of group I can be used to make another and materially different products.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-6 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 1 is rejected due to the phrase “the combined, continuous mixing and metering” since the term “the combined” lacks antecedent basis and thus it is unclear if “the combined” is with respect to mixing and metering, with respect to with gas or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1 is rejected due to the phrase “the manufacture of” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis and thus it is unclear if “the manufacture of” is with respect to mixing and metering, with respect to with gas, with respect to a manufacturing step or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1 is rejected due to the term “preferably” in the pre-amble and step (ii) of claim 1, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations which follow the phrase “are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 is rejected due to the phrase “more preferably” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations which follow the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The phrases “free-flowing or pourable” in claim 1 are rejected, as they are relative terms, which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “free-flowing” and “pourable” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “free-flowing”, it is unclear what is encompassed by the phrase “pourable”; it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed relative individually “free-flowing” and “pourable”. It is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed relative “free-flowing” as opposed to “pourable”. It is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “free-flowing” but pourable, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “pourable” but free-flowing.
Claim 1 is rejected due to the phrase “based on the dry substance” since the phrase “the dry substance” lacks antecedent basis and thus it is unclear if “the dry substance” is with respect to the dough or paste, with respect to the vegetable protein being “dry” as opposed to a liquid with respect to the gas or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1 is rejected due to the phrase “the elongated process space” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis and thus it is unclear if the phrase is with respect to broadly any extruder, if the phrase is with respect to minimum length of the entirety of the extruder, if the phrase is with respect to a process space specific to the addition of gas, or with respect to something different altogether.
The phrase “elongated process space” in claim 1 is rejected, as the term “elongated” is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elongated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “elongated”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “elongated” but an extruder.
Claim 1 is rejected due to the phrase “the manufacture of a high viscosity dough or paste” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis and thus it is unclear if “the manufacture of a high viscosity dough or paste” is with respect to a same “manufacture of foamed products”, with respect to “the manufacture” limited to “high viscosity dough or paste” or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1 is rejected due to the phrase “fluid is added by a fluid supply device for the manufacture of a high viscosity dough or paste having a dynamic viscosity of h (g.) ≥ 10 Pas, measured in a rotational rheometer at a shear rate of g. = 100 s-1”, specifically with respect to the method step of “measured in a rotational rheometer” since it is unclear if the dough, after fluid is added, is removed from the extruder and “measured in a rotational rheometer”, if the “rotational rheometer” is within the extruder, if the phrase is with respect to a pre-set amount of fluid which achieves the claimed viscosity when measured by a rotational rheometer or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1 is rejected due to the phrase of step (ii) “the first fluid supply device” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis and thus it is unclear if “the first fluid supply device” is with respect to a same fluid supply device of step (i), with respect to a distinct and separate type of “additional fluid component” from the first fluid supply, such as air, if the phrase is with respect to solely step (ii), i.e. “an additional fluid component” metered at a first supply point and “at least one further fluid supply point” spaced in the conveying direction from a first supply point or with respect to something different altogether.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected due to the phrase of step (iii) of claim 1 and claim 2, “finely dispersed” as the term “finely” is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “finely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “finely dispersed”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “finely dispersed” but dispersed.
Claim 1 step (iii) is rejected due to the phrase “the dough or paste fluid phase” since the term “fluid phase” lacks antecedent basis and thus it is unclear if the “fluid phase” is limited to fluid added, i.e. gas added to the fluid prior to adding to the dry powder mixture, with respect to the combination of dry powder mixture and “fluid” added, with respect to after the additional fluid component of step (ii) added or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1 step (iii) is rejected due to the phrase “dissolved in the dough or paste fluid phase” with respect to a high viscosity dough as claimed since “dissolved” is specific to liquid solutions. Thus with respect to a dough or paste, the term “dissolved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “dissolved”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “dissolved” but an added component and/or mixed therein.
Claim 1 step (iv) is rejected due to the phrase “the discharge side” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 step (iv) is rejected due to the phrase “the processing space configured as a process space” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 step (v) is rejected due to the phrase “the outlet opening” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 step (v) is rejected due to the phrase “the gas dissolution in the process space” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis and thus it is unclear if the phrase is with respect to step (iii) limiting the finely dispersed and/or dissolved, if the phrase is with respect to the outlet opening of step (v), if the phrase is with respect to additional gas dissolution in addition to being finely dispersed or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1 step (vi) is rejected due to the phrase “the degree of gas dissolution” since the phrase contradicts the previously claimed “dissolved” of step (iii) and “pressure required for the gas dissolution” of step (v) since “the degree of gas dissolution” is open to an amount which is not dissolved i.e., degree. Thus it is unclear if the phrase is with respect to measuring the absolute, i.e. dissolved, and “required for dissolution” or if the phrase is with respect to a degree of less than 100%, i.e. the degree of or if the phrase is with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1, step (vii) is rejected due to the phrase “the end of the metering valve device” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, step (vii) is rejected due to the phrase “the foam formation” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, step (vii) is rejected due to the phrase “the foam formation is launched under pressure, lowering only when exiting a valve outlet channel of the metering valve device” specifically with respect to the phrase “lowering only” as it is unclear if the foam formation is lowered, if the phrase “lowering” is with respect to pressure, if the phrase is with respect to a combination foam formation lowered by pressure being lowered or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1, step (vii) is rejected due to the phrase “the foam formation is launched under pressure, lowering only when exiting a valve outlet channel of the metering valve device supported by native starch particles, which particles initiate a secondary, heterogeneous gas bubble nucleation” specifically due to the phrase “the metering valve device supported by native starch particles” since it is unclear if the metering valve contains an additional native starch particle component for addition thereto, if the phrase is with respect to actual support of the metering valve device being “native starch particles”, if the phrase is with respect to assumed “native starch particles” in the instant the dough or paste actually comprises such or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 1 step (viii) is rejected as it appears to contradict step (vii). Step (viii) limits “foam expansion” to “only after the dough or paste exits the metering valve device”, i.e. valve outlet where step (vii) claims “foam formation launched under pressure” thus it is unclear if foam formation and foam expansion are a same, with respect to different processing conditions, i.e. under pressure vs after exiting, with respect to “lowering” of an outlet channel prior to exiting the valve itself or dependent on “the metering valve device supported by native starch particles, which particles initiate a secondary, heterogeneous gas bubble nucleation” or something different altogether.
Claim 2 is rejected due to the phrase “conveying and/or mixing and/or dispersing elements” specifically with respect to the claimed “and” as it is unclear if the phrase is with respect to a singular element which achieves each of conveying and mixing and dispersing, with respect to multiple different elements. It is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed by conveying and mixing and dispersing relative each singularly claimed element.
Claim 2 is rejected due to the phrase “dissolved completely in the dough or in the paste” with respect to a high viscosity dough as claimed since “dissolved” is specific to liquid solutions and since claim 1 claims “dissolved” in the fluid phase. Thus with respect to a dough or paste, the term “dissolved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “dissolved”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “dissolved” but an added component or mixed.
Claim 2 is rejected due to the phrase “the part of the relevant extruder screw channel” since “the part” and “the part of the relevant extruder channel” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 2 is rejected due to the phrase “is initiated” since it is unclear if the term requires foam formation or merely “is initiated”. In addition the phrase “is initiated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “is initiated”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “initiated” but under pressure before a same outlet opening.
Claim 2 is rejected due to the phrase “immediately before” since the term “immediately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “immediately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “immediately before”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “immediately before” but before the outlet opening of the metering device.
Claim 3 is rejected due to the phrase “a dynamic viscosity of h (g.) ≥ 10 Pas, measured in a rotational rheometer at a shear rate of g. = 100 s-1”, specifically with respect to the method step of “measured in a rotational rheometer” since it is unclear if the dough, after fluid is added, is removed from the extruder and “measured in a rotational rheometer”, if the “rotational rheometer” is within the extruder, if the phrase is with respect to a pre-set amount of fluid which achieves the claimed viscosity when measured by a rotational rheometer or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 3 is rejected due to the phrase “is added to this” since it unclear what is encompassed by “this”
Claim 3 is rejected due to the phrase “the gap” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is rejected due to the phrase “thin flow layers” since the term “thin” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “thin flow layers”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “thin” but flow layers.
Claim 3 is rejected due to the phrase “this gas is converted” since the term “converted” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “converted” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “this gas is converted”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “converted” but added.
Claim 3 is rejected due to the phrase “the dough or paste system” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is rejected due to the phrase “this solution/dispersion state” is rejected as the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is rejected due to the phrase “shortly before discharge” since the term “shortly before” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shortly before” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “shortly before”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “shortly before” but before.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “the extruder screw channel” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “the fluid supply zone-2” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “the compressed gas supply zone” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “dynamic viscosity of h (g.) ≥ 10 Pas, measured in a rotational rheometer at a shear rate of g. = 100 s-1”, specifically with respect to the method step of “measured in a rotational rheometer” since it is unclear if the dough, after fluid is added, is removed from the extruder and “measured in a rotational rheometer”, if the “rotational rheometer” is within the extruder, if the phrase is with respect to a pre-set amount of fluid which achieves the claimed viscosity when measured by a rotational rheometer or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “the gas dispersion and dissolution zone” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “the gas phase” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the term “preferably” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations which follow the phrase “are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “the axial distance” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “a pouring” since it is unclear what is encompassed by the phrase. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “a pouring”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “a pouring” since the phrase is with respect to a dough or paste.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “the adjustment of the degree of gas microdispersion and/or gas dissolution in the dough or in the paste, as well as for the dissolved gas portion, the gas bubble nucleation and the initiation of bubble expansion” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “the further bubble expansion” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the phrase “the mean bubble/porous diameters (x50.3) as well as their size distribution width” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is rejected due to the phrase “oil-based fluid system” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is rejected due to the phrase “the dough or paste recipe” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is rejected due to the phrase “the first fluid metering” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is rejected due to the phrase “the second fluid metering” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is rejected due to the phrase “the fluid supply device-1” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is rejected due to the phrase “the fluid supply device-2” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is rejected due to the phrase “the length range of the gas dispersion and dissolution zone” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 is rejected due to the phrase “a pouring” since it is unclear what is encompassed by the phrase. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “a pouring”, it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed if not “a pouring” since the phrase is with respect to a dough or paste.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lammers et al. (201803175010) in view of Pandey et al. (CA2665898).
Lammers teaches a method for the combined, continuous mixing and metering of doughs (par. 0076) enriched with gas under static pressure for the manufacture of foamed products (par. 0076), in which a free-flowing (par. 0058; flour) or pourable, dry powder mixture for doughs (par. 0058), is introduced into the elongated process space of an extruder (par. 0103). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a motor with respect to the taught extruder since such is known in the art to achieve the desired mixing as taught.
(i)fluid is added by a fluid supply device (par. 0077) for the manufacture of a high viscosity dough (par. 0064) having a dynamic viscosity of h (g.) ≥ 10 Pas (par. 0064), and thereby a dough plug builds up continuously which seals against backflow effects of fluid or gas (par. 0094),
(ii) the viscosity of the high-viscosity dough or paste plug is reduced by metering an additional fluid component fraction (par. 0096; where it is noted gas is a fluid) at least one further fluid supply point (fig. 2 ref. 18) which is spaced apart in conveying direction from the first fluid supply device (fig. 2 ref. 18),
(iii) whereinafter a gas component (par. 0096) under pressure is supplied and finely dispersed and/or dissolved in the dough fluid phase (par. 0096) by a compressed gas (par. 0076 compressed) supply device (fig. 2 ref. 18; same as second fluid) arranged in an axial conveying direction (fig. 2), and
(iv) wherein at least one dough discharge and metering element configured as a metering valve device (fig. 2 ref. 25; par. 0102) is arranged on the discharge side of the processing space configured as a process space (fig. 2 entirety),
(v) the outlet opening (par. 0096 gas valve) of which is regulated or controlled in its cross-section in order to maintain the static pressure required for the gas dissolution in the process space (par. 0097), and wherein
(vi) a measuring device (par. 0096, 0097) continuously measures the degree of gas dissolution between the compressed gas supply device and the metering valve device (par. 0097)
(vii) and due to a pressure control, the gas contained in the dough or paste is kept in solution or fine dispersion until the end of the metering valve device and the foam formation is launched under pressure (par. 0100), lowering only when exiting a valve outlet channel of the metering valve (par. 0101-0102) device supported by native starch particles (par. 0058 starch containing dough), which particles initiate a secondary, heterogeneous gas bubble nucleation (par. 0101), and
(viii) wherein the subsequent dough or paste foam expansion supported by the dough viscosity, occurs only after the dough or paste exits the metering valve device (par. 0123).
Lammers teaches a method of foaming dough based food products and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of preparing foamed dough products as taught by Pandey.
More specifically Pandey teaches the aerated composition comprising vegetable protein (pg. 8 3rd par. last 3 lines) in an amount of between 15% and 35% (pg. 8 line 1).
Thus since Lammers teaches the starch containing flour and water further comprising additional ingredients (par. 0058) which do not affect the foaming of the dough. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide the addition of a vegetable protein content in the range from 5 to 70% (W/W), based on the dry substance as taught by Pandey for its art recognized purpose of controlling the water binding of the aerated composition and the advantage of preventing or delaying the hardening of the composition as taught by Pandey (pg. 7 par. 2).
Lammers teaches a high viscosity dough (par. 0064) having a dynamic viscosity of h (g.) ≥ 10 Pas. Thus since the controlling factor is the viscosity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure in a rotational rheometer at a shear rate of g. = 100 s-1 thus achieving a same high viscosity dough as taught by Lammers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide the viscosity of the high-viscosity dough or paste plug is reduced by ≥ 20%, preferably ≥ 50%, by metering an additional fluid component fraction at least one further fluid supply point which is spaced apart in conveying direction from the first fluid supply device thus achieving a same desired high viscosity dough for foaming as taught Lammers (par. 0123)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the subsequent dough or paste foam expansion of at least ≥ 20% (V/V), supported by the dough or paste viscosity, occurs only after the dough or paste exits the metering valve device thus achieving the same desired foamed dough product and attain the desired dough density as taught by Lammers (par. 0120-0122).
Claim 2, wherein the dough or the paste is transported in one or a plurality of extruders (par. 0103). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a motor with respect to the taught extruder since such is known in the art to achieve the desired mixing as taught. Lammers teaches the extruder having screw equipped zonally in different zones with conveying and/or mixing and/or dispersing elements (par. 0098; fig. 2), wherein the extruders are closed gas-tight at both ends during the conveying process, such that no gas loss occurs in the process space by the addition of gas under pressure into the part of the relevant extruder screw channel configured for gas dispersion and/or gas dissolution (Par. 0079 under pressure; pressure maintained), and the gas within this partial area of the extruder screw channel is finely dispersed and/or dissolved completely in the dough or in the paste under increased static pressure in a controlled manner (par. 0079) and no foam formation is initiated until immediately before the outlet opening of the metering valve device (par. 0102, 0122).
Claim 3, wherein a free-flowing, dry powder or a free-flowing powder mixture for the production of a dough or a paste is introduced into the extruder screw channel (0119) of at least one or a plurality of extruder screws (par. 0098) and a water- and/or oil-based fluid system is added (par. 0119) to this free-flowing powder mixture or the free-flowing powder at the beginning of the extruder screw channel for the production of a high-viscosity dough or a high-viscosity paste with a dynamic viscosity of h (g.) ≥ 10 Pas (par. 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure in a rotational rheometer at a shear rate of g. = 100 s-1 thus achieving a same high viscosity dough as taught by Lammers.
Lammers teaches is used as a fluid- and gas-tight sealing plug in the front area of the extruder screw channel (par. 0079 under pressure),.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide the viscosity of the high-viscosity dough or paste plug is reduced by ≥ 20%, by metering an additional fluid component fraction at least one further fluid supply point which is spaced apart in conveying direction from the first fluid supply device thus achieving a same desired high viscosity dough for foaming as taught Lammers (par. 0123)
Lammer teaches this gas is converted, under superimposed shear in the extruder screw channel in the gap in thin flow layers produced between co-rotating screw conveyors into a solution or alternatively a microdispersion state with gas bubbles (par. 0120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a desired size of gas bubbles as taught by Lammers, such as in the instant case the diameter range ≤ 10 micrometers, in the dough or paste system, thus achieving its art recognized purpose of achieving a desired product density which is foamed as taught.
Lammers teaches as well as while avoiding foam formation (par. 0120), this solution/dispersion state is maintained until bubble nucleation is specifically initiated and increased in the gas-containing dough or in the gas-containing paste shortly before discharge from one or more discharge/metering devices by secondary, heterogeneous gas bubble nucleation and pressure reduction (par. 0121, 0122).
Claim 4, wherein the control of the fluid supply in the extruder screw channel is carried out as a function of the viscosity of the dough or the paste (par. 0119), wherein in a mixing zone sealing conditions, against fluid and gas backflows from the fluid supply zone-2 downstream in the flow direction from the mixing zone and the compressed gas supply zone (fig. 2), are implemented by the formation of a dough or paste plug of higher dynamic viscosity of h (g.) ≥ 10 Pas (par. 0064), Measured in a rotational rheometer at a shear rate of g. = 100 s-1 is taken as above, which dynamically seals the extruder screw channel, and by this dynamic sealing, static pressures between 5 to 100 bar are provided in the gas dispersion and dissolution zone (par. 0120), and thereby gas dissolution and/or micro-dispersion conditions are provided for the gas phase in the dough or in the paste with dwell times in this gas dispersion and dissolution zone between 10 to 120 seconds (par. 0121 120 seconds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the axial distance between the fluid supply devices is continuously adjusted and the fluid supply devices are locked in predetermined positions, positions matched to the dough or paste recipe, for its art recognized purpose of achieving the gas-enriched dough or the paste with ≥ 10% (V/V) based on the relaxed state under atmospheric pressure (par. 0122) as taught by Lammers.
Lammers teaches the dough is discharged in a pouring (par. 0123 relative nozzle) via one or more discharge/dosing elements configured as a metering valve device (par. 0102), wherein a static pressure control/pressure conduction brings about the adjustment of the degree of gas microdispersion and/or gas dissolution in the dough or in the paste (par. 0099), as well as for the dissolved gas portion, the gas bubble nucleation and the initiation of bubble expansion (par. 0101) is relocated to the outlet end of the discharge/metering elements configured as the metering valve device and the further bubble expansion and foam formation are carried out in the already metered dough or in the paste (par. 0101). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the subsequent dough or paste foam expansion of at least ≥ 20% (V/V), supported by the dough or paste viscosity, occurs only after the dough or paste exits the metering valve device thus achieving the same desired foamed dough product and attain the desired dough density as taught by Lammers (par. 0120-0122).
Lammer teaches a fluidically undisturbed, spatially uniform gas bubble expansion with resulting narrow bubble size distribution is described by SPAN values (SPAN = (x90.3-x10.3)/x50.3,) for the metered, foamed dough or the paste in the range of ≤ 1.5, , and foam bubble diameter or pore diameter x50.3 from 4 to 200 micrometers, for the extruded foamed dough or paste, and from 10 to 250, for the product produced from foamed dough or paste by post-treatment in baking processes (par. 0123), and wherein one or more of the following system parameters are used as control variables for the control of the mean bubble/porous diameters (x50.3) as well as their size distribution width:
(a) dough or paste viscosity (par. 0064), (c) dough or paste mass flow (par. 0102), (d) total mass-related gas component added (par. 0101), define the spatial and temporal pressure relief gradients, wherein the pressure relief gradients directly correlate with the corresponding spatial and temporal gas bubble nucleation and expansion gradients (par. 0101).
Claim 5, wherein the supply of a water and gas is adjusted in a controlled or regulated manner as a function of the dough or paste recipe (par. 0094, 0096), wherein the first fluid metering takes place by means of the fluid supply device-1 at an axial extruder screw length L, measured in conveying direction (par. 0077, 0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the desired 2 to 8 times the extruder screw diameter D for its art recognized purpose of achieving the desired homogenous mixture.
Lammers teaches the extruder divided into zones (par. 0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second fluid metering is applied by means of the fluid supply device-2 at an axial extruder screw length, measured in conveying direction, which corresponds to at least 10 to 14 times the extruder screw diameter thus achieving a desired dough viscosity as taught by Lammers (par. 0094).
Lammers teaches the metering of the foaming gas takes place by means of the compressed gas supply device (par. 0096) in the form of CO2 (par. 0097) thereof under a static pressure of 5 to 100 bar, with a gas volume fraction of between 5 and 70% by volume, based on the pressure-relieved ambient state of the dough or alternatively the paste (par. 0097), in the extruder at an axial extruder screw length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide least 12 to 16 times the extruder screw diameter, whereas for the length range of the gas dispersion and dissolution zone at least 12 L/D < 20, when using an extruder with a total length of 28 D applies, whereas this and all previously specified L/D length scales with the factor (L/D)max/28 are multiplied when using an extruder with (L/D)max that is other than 28 thus achieving a same foaming of a dough in multiple zones specific to attain a final desired dough finished with qualities with regard to volume, texture and pore structure as taught by Lammers (par. 0042).
Claim 6, the process is carried out at a temperature below 160 °C (par. 0095), and the foamed dough or paste after discharge into a container, pouring or baking mold (par. 0086), is baked or is cooled (par. 0102; relative temperature difference in nozzle from extruder) in a freshly extruded state (par. 0102).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20190230941 directed to foamed food, 3456599 and 6338867 directed to dough extrusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights