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 .
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 7 and 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “in the range of 0.01-200 g per L of component (D)” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “component (D).” It is also unknown what component (D) refers to.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “a drawing factor” in line 3. It is unclear if this refers to “a drawing factor” recited in Claim 1, line 16 or to an entirely different drawing factor. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claims to refer to the same drawing factor.
Clarification is required.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn with the exception of the insufficient antecedent basis rejection of Claim 7 enumerated above, which has been maintained herein. A new indefiniteness rejection of Claim 22 has been made in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103(a) to Forgacs et al. in view of McIsaac et al., Connelly et al., Le Paih et al., Treharne, and Soucy et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary reference of Connelly has an objective to provide extruded structures which have an adjustable coarseness with two plates with through openings located adjacent to each other and mounted so they can be rotated relative to each other to generate correspondingly finer elongated structures whereas elongated structures of variable thickness is not an issue in the primary reference of Forgacs or the secondary reference of McIsaac or in meat fiber production. Applicant continues that the claimed method involves having two nozzle plates and in the extrusion process, not to rotate them, but to distance them in a particular way. Applicant also argues that FIG. 4 of the secondary reference of Treharn discloses a plate 27 through which tubes 24 penetrate which tubes 24 are used for extruding into the space downstream of the terminal portion 28 of these tubes 24 and that plate 27 is not a nozzle plate but is a carrier plate for tubes 24. Applicant also contends that plunger 15 is not a nozzle plate having nozzle openings aligned with those of the extrusion plate and that plunger 15 does not have openings and is provided for closing the space downstream of tubes 24 completely and the plunger 15 is shifted more towards the extrusion device and into the tube 2 and used in an opposite direction to the one claimed. Applicant also asserts that Soucy does not disclose the generation of fibrous meat product and does not work with a nozzle plate and that nozzle 105 of Soucy is actually a tubular inlet structure wherein meat product is injected into chamber 101 and the piston 104 regulates the size of the chamber but is not provided with nozzle openings and not used for attaching any of the material injected into the chamber and to use piston 104 in the extrusion process to generate particular stretched structures. Claim 1 also recites limitations regarding a drawing rate in a specific numerical range and direction to reflect that the attachment plate needs to move faster than the ejection speed. Soucy does not disclose the attachment plate moving faster than the ejection speed and Paragraph [0041]) of Soucy only discloses that one can have different piston speeds but does not indicate the direction or any distancing speed adjusted relative to an injection speed or an extrusion speed through a nozzle plate. These particular arguments are found persuasive. Therefore, the previous obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103(a) to Forgacs et al. in view of McIsaac et al., Connelly et al., Le Paih et al., Treharne, and Soucy et al. have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 14, 17-21, and 26 are allowed.
Claims 7 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent Claim 1, the secondary reference of Connelly has an objective to provide extruded structures which have an adjustable coarseness with two plates with through openings located adjacent to each other and mounted so they can be rotated relative to each other to generate correspondingly finer elongated structures whereas elongated structures of variable thickness is not an issue in the primary reference of Forgacs or the secondary reference of McIsaac or in meat fiber production. The claimed method involves having two nozzle plates and in the extrusion process, not to rotate them, but to distance them in a particular way. Additionally, FIG. 4 of the secondary reference of Treharn discloses a plate 27 through which tubes 24 penetrate which tubes 24 are used for extruding into the space downstream of the terminal portion 28 of these tubes 24 and that plate 27 is not a nozzle plate but is a carrier plate for tubes 24. Plunger 15 is not a nozzle plate having nozzle openings aligned with those of the extrusion plate and that plunger 15 does not have openings and is provided for closing the space downstream of tubes 24 completely and the plunger 15 is shifted more towards the extrusion device and into the tube 2 and used in an opposite direction to the one claimed. Furthermore, Soucy does not disclose the generation of fibrous meat product and does not work with a nozzle plate and that nozzle 105 of Soucy is actually a tubular inlet structure wherein meat product is injected into chamber 101 and the piston 104 regulates the size of the chamber but is not provided with nozzle openings and not used for attaching any of the material injected into the chamber and to use piston 104 in the extrusion process to generate particular stretched structures. Claim 1 also recites limitations regarding a drawing rate in a specific numerical range and direction to reflect that the attachment plate needs to move faster than the ejection speed. Soucy does not disclose the attachment plate moving faster than the ejection speed and Paragraph [0041]) of Soucy only discloses that one can have different piston speeds but does not indicate the direction or any distancing speed adjusted relative to an injection speed or an extrusion speed through a nozzle plate.
Examiner notes that Withdrawn Claims 10-13, 15, and 23-25 are not eligible for rejoinder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barr et al. EP 0416782 discloses a method of making an extruded imitation crabmeat product (‘782, Column 1, lines 1-5) comprising an extruder including two plates lying in one plate and two other plates lying in an adjacent parallel plane wherein the four plates are slid relative to each other to vary the width and thickness of the rectangular gap formed where the plates overlap and three control valves are used to assure an even flow of ground surimi through the gap (‘782, Column 6, lines 1-14) wherein the plates and spacers are mounted on a horizontal shaft that passes through the center of the plates and spacers wherein each of the shafts is rotatable and mounted so that the width of the gap between the periphery of the plates is adjustable and by adjusting the spacing between the two sets of plates the depth of the slits in the ribbon is varied (‘782, Column 8, lines 18-46).
Hauck et al. US 2004/0043094 discloses an extrusion system and method for making food extrudates (‘094, Paragraph [0009]) wherein the extrusion system comprises a barrel with a pair of plates including openings communicating with an outlet (‘094, Paragraph [0018]).
Hauck US 5,700,510 discloses a simple die apparatus in the form of a simple plate having a plurality of outlet openings therethrough or pressure controlled dies having orifices of variable effective dimensions.
Porter et al. US 3,973,890 discloses a die plate means comprising a pair of nested die plates mounted for slight selective positioning for altering or adjusting the degree of alignment or misalignment of the orifices in the nested die plates relative to one another.
Adderley Jr. et al. US 4,465,451 discloses a die plate means aligned with the delivery end of an extruder bore wherein the die plate means has a group of orifices in different areas of the die plate means wherein the orifices have different size diameters or have the same size diameters.
Hirko US 2014/0356086 discloses a device capable of creating a plurality of tubiform food products from a plurality of cylindrical food item blanks wherein the device is a coring machine comprising a plate assembly acting to hold the plurality of food item blanks in place between a top plate and bottom plate (‘086, Paragraph [0018]).
Birch et al. US 4,343,904 discloses a method of growing animal cells and the production of metabolites therefrom (‘904, Column 1, lines 5-8) comprising an extrusion plate and an attachment plate (one or more impellers 13 and 13’ in the form of vaned discs) (‘904, FIGS. 2-3) (‘904, Column 3, lines 14-18) (‘904, Column 5, lines 1-4).
Bliem et al. US 5,187,095 discloses a method of propagation animal cells (‘095, Column 1, lines 5-9) using a culture system comprising a plurality of perforate plates (‘095, FIG. 7) (‘095, Column 7, lines 35-64).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, 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 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights