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 without traverse of Group I: Claims 1-9, 14, 16-22, and 26 in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-13, 15, and 23-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
An action on the merits of elected Claims 1-9, 14, 16-22, and 26 is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 12, 2024 and May 13, 2024 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 14, 16-22, and 26 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 1 recites the limitation “paste” in line 6. It is unclear if this refers to “a paste” recited in Claim 1, line 3 or to an entirely different paste. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same paste.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said space” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a distancing speed between extrusion plate and said attachment plate” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “a distancing speed.”
Claim 2 recite the limitation “said elongated fibrous structure” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a fibrous structure. There is only antecedent basis for “an elongated structure” as recited in Claim 1, lines 1-2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the interspace” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the plates” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein said extrusion plate and/or said attachment plate comprises at least 20 openings” in lines 2-4. It is unclear if “openings” of the extrusion plate refers to “an extrusion plate with at least one nozzle opening” recited in Claim 1, line 3 or to entirely different openings.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the plate cross section area” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if “the plate” refers to “an extrusion plate” recited in Claim 1, line 3, “an adjacent attachment plate” recited in Claim 1, line 4, or to an entirely different plate.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a plate” in line 14. It is unclear if this refers to “an extrusion plate” recited in Claim 1, line 3, “an adjacent attachment plate” recited in Claim 1, line 4, or to an entirely different plate.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “nozzle openings” in lines 14-15. It is unclear if this refers to “at least one nozzle opening” recited in Claim 1, line 3 or to entirely different nozzle openings.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an adjacent attachment plate” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if this refers to “an adjacent attachment plate” recited in Claim 1, line 4 or to an entirely different adjacent attachment plate.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “comprising of consisting of the following components” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what transitional phrase is required in Claim 7 since both “comprising” and “consisting of” are both recited. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to require the open ended transitional phrase “comprising.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “in the range of 0.01-200 g per L of component (D)” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “component (D).” It is also unknown what component (D) refers to.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “cells selected from mammalian cells, fish cells, crustaceous cells or a combination thereof in a concentration in the paste in the range of 0-300 billion cells per L of component (D)” in lines 11-12. The lower end of the range is 0 billion cells per L of component (D), i.e. there are no cells present in the paste. It is unclear if cells are required in the paste or if cells are absent from the paste.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “additives different from (A)-(D) selected from the group consisting of crosslinking kinetic modifier in a concentration in the paste in the range of 0-500 mM” in lines 14-15. The lower end of the range is 0 mM kinetic modifier, i.e. there is no kinetic modifier present in the paste. It is unclear if kinetic modifier is required in the paste or if kinetic modifier is absent from the paste.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “flow modifier in a concentration in the paste in the range of 0-200 g per L of component (D)” in lines 15-16. The lower end of the range is 0 g per L flow modifier, i.e. there is no flow modifier present in the paste. It is unclear if flow modifier is required in the paste or if flow modifier is absent from the paste.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the two nozzle plates” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the distancing speed” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unknown what is meant by the phrase “a distancing speed.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a paste” in line 1. It is unclear if this refers to “a paste” recited in Claim 1, line 3 or to an entirely different paste. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same paste.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an extrusion plate” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “an extrusion plate” recited in Claim 1, line 3 or to an entirely different extrusion plate.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “at least one nozzle opening” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “at least one nozzle opening” recited in Claim 1, line 3 or to an entirely different at least one nozzle opening.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an adjacent attachment plate” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this refers to “an adjacent attachment plate” recited in Claim 1, line 4 or to an entirely different adjacent attachment plate.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the plates” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the gel paste” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a hardening bath” in line 4. It is unclear if this refers to “a hardening bath” recited in Claim 17, line 3 or to an entirely different hardening bath.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a plate” in line 9. It is unclear if this refers to “an extrusion plate” recited in Claim 1, line 3, “an adjacent attachment plate” recited in Claim 1, line 4, or to an entirely different plate.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “an adjacent attachment plate” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “an adjacent attachment plate” recited in Claim 1, line 4 or to an entirely different adjacent attachment plate.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the two nozzle plates” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the plates” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “comprising of consisting of” in line 2. It is unclear what transitional phrase is required in Claim 7 since both “comprising” and “consisting of” are both recited. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to require the open ended transitional phrase “comprising.”
Claim 20 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 20 recites the limitation “cells selected from mammalian cells, fish cells, crustaceous cells or a combination thereof in a concentration in the paste in the range of 0-300 billion cells per L of component (D)” in lines 10-11. The lower end of the range is 0 billion cells per L of component (D), i.e. there are no cells present in the paste. It is unclear if cells are required in the paste or if cells are absent from the paste.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “additives different from (A)-(D) selected from the group consisting of crosslinking kinetic modifier in a concentration in the paste in the range of 0-500 mM” in lines 13-14. The lower end of the range is 0 mM kinetic modifier, i.e. there is no kinetic modifier present in the paste. It is unclear if kinetic modifier is required in the paste or if kinetic modifier is absent from the paste.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the two nozzle plates” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the anisotropic microfibrillar structures” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the distancing speed” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unknown what is meant by the phrase “a distancing speed.”
Clarification is required.
Claims 5, 14, and 26 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-8, 14, 16-21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forgacs et al. US 2014/0093618 in view of McIsaac et al. US 6,290,483, Connelly et al. US 2012/0228417, Le Paih et al. US 2015/0157032, and Treharne US 4,280,803.
Regarding Claim 1, Forgacs et al. discloses a method of making an elongated structure for the fabrication of cultivated meat (‘618, Paragraphs [0061], [0063], and [0066]) wherein a paste (‘618, Paragraph [0090]) is extruded via at least one nozzle opening into a space (‘618, Paragraph [0093]).
Forgacs et al. is silent regarding the paste being extruded through an extrusion plate at least partly through an adjacent attachment plate wherein the paste located in the attachment plate and/or in the space is at least partly hardened wherein the paste is continued to be extruded through the extrusion plate while increasing the distance between the extrusion plate and the attachment plate under formation of the elongated structure between the plates.
McIsaac et al. discloses a method for the manufacturing of an elongated structure (tubular shaped) (‘483, Column 2, lines 23-31) for the fabrication of meat (‘483, Column 1, lines 61-63) wherein a paste is extruded through an extrusion plate (forming plate 20) with at least one nozzle opening (central bore 22) (‘483, FIG. 2) (‘483, Column 2, lines 52-59).
PNG
media_image1.png
887
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Both Forgacs et al. and McIsaac et al. are both directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making a structure for the fabrication of meat using extrusion methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the extrusion method of Forgacs et al. and extrude the paste through an extrusion plate with at least one nozzle opening as taught by McIsaac et al. since McIsaac et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food extrusion art to extrude meat using a forming plate with patterns of holes to provide food extruded therethrough with a correspondingly desired shape (‘483, Column 2, lines 23-31).
Further regarding Claim 1, Forgacs et al. modified with McIsaac et al. is silent regarding the paste also being extruded at least partly through an adjacent attachment plate wherein the paste is located in the attachment plate and/or in the space is at least partly hardened wherein the paste continues to be extruded through the extrusion plate while increasing the distance between the extrusion plate and the attachment plate under formation of the elongated structure between the plates.
Connelly et al. discloses a method for the manufacturing of a structure for the fabrication of a shaped food wherein food is extruded (‘417, Paragraph [0001]) through an extrusion plate (first plate 300) and at least partly through an adjacent attachment plate (second plate 400) wherein the food continues to be extruded through the extrusion plate (first plate 300) (‘417, Paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
Both modified Forgacs et al. and Connelly et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of extruding foods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food extrusion method of modified Forgacs et al. and extrude the food through the extrusion plate and at least partly through an adjacent attachment plate such that the food continues to be extruded through the extrusion plate as taught by Connelly et al. in order to adjust the coarseness of the extruded food upon superimposition of the multiple plates (‘417, Paragraph [0042]). One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate an adjacent attachment plate in conjunction with the extrusion plate to result in an extra coarse extrusion setting (‘417, Paragraph [0047]). One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the additional adjacent attachment plate when a coarser extruded food is desired.
Further regarding Claim 1, Forgacs et al. modified with McIsaac et al. and Connelly et al. is silent regarding the paste located in the attachment plate and/or in the space being at least partly hardened.
Le Paih et al. discloses a method for the manufacturing of a structure for the fabrication of meat (‘032, Paragraph [0015]) wherein a paste (food dough) is extruded into a space (‘032, Paragraph [0016]) wherein the paste is at least partly hardened (strengthened) (‘032, Paragraph [0028]).
Both modified Forgacs et al. and Le Paih et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of extruding meat. Forgacs et al. discloses adhesion of the cells in the multicellular body being suitably sufficiently strong to allow the multicellular body to retain a three dimensional shape while supporting itself on a flat surface (‘618, Paragraph [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Forgacs et al. and at least partly harden/strengthen the meat paste as taught by Le Paih et al. in order to coagulate the meat with the gelling agent and acidic buffer solution (‘032, Paragraph [0087]) and to further maintain the three dimensional shape of the meat as already desired by Forgacs et al.
Further regarding Claim 1, Forgacs et al. modified with McIsaac et al., Connelly et al., and Le Paih et al. is silent regarding the paste continuing to be extruded through the extruded plate while increasing the distance between the extrusion plate and the attachment plate under formation of the elongated structure between the plates.
Treharne discloses a method for the manufacturing of an elongated structure (‘803, Column 12, lines 24-44) for the fabrication of meat (‘803, Column 1, lines 7-14) wherein a paste is extruded through an extrusion plate (plate 27) with at least one nozzle opening (apertures of plate 27) (‘803, Column 7, lines 53-58) and at least partly through an adjacent attachment plate (plunger 15) into a space (‘803, Column 7, lines 30-47) wherein the paste is located in the space (‘803, Column 6, lines 8-19) and at least partly hardened (coagulated) (‘803, Column 4, lines 51-61) wherein the paste continues to be extruded through the extrusion plate (plate 27) while increasing the distance between the extrusion plate (plate 27) and the attachment plate (plunger 15 is movable) under formation of the elongated structure between the plates (‘803, Column 9, lines 1-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
422
1346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both modified Forgacs et al. and Treharne are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making meat products using an extrusion process. Both extrusion processes involve using at least one plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Forgacs et al. and continue to extrude the paste through the stationary extrusion plate while increasing the distance between the extrusion plate and an adjacent attachment plate that moves to form the elongated structure between the plates since Treharne teaches that there was known utility in the food extrusion art to utilize a stationary extrusion plate that shapes the meat product in combination with a movable adjacent attachment plate in the form of a moveable plunger to form and shape an extruded meat product.
Regarding Claim 2, Treharne discloses the extrusion taking place at an ejection speed under the generation of a speed gradient downstream of the nozzle opening in the extrusion plate (plate 27) by way of a distancing speed between the extrusion plate (plate 27) and the adjacent attachment plate (plunger 15) larger than the ejection speed (‘803, Column 3, lines 35-49) to form the fibrous structure (‘803, Column 6, lines 20-37).
Regarding Claim 3, Le Paih et al. discloses the paste in the space and/or in the interspace between the plates (‘032, Paragraph [0065]) being immersed in a hardening bath (calcium chloride solution) (‘032, Paragraph [0090]).
Regarding Claim 4, Connelly et al. discloses the attachment plate (second plate 400) being a porous plate (second plate 400 includes a second pattern of apertures 402) (‘417, FIG. 4) (‘417, Paragraph [0038]). The second pattern of apertures 402 of the attachment plate of second plate 400 also reads on the claimed attachment plate being a plate with nozzle openings.
Further regarding Claim 4, the recitation of the phrase “and/or” indicates that the other limitations of Claim 4 are optional limitations that do not need to be met by the prior art since the prior art combination renders obvious the limitations “and/or wherein the attachment plate is a mesh, a porous plate, or a plate with nozzle openings.”
Regarding Claim 5, Forgacs et al. discloses the extrusion steps (‘618, Paragraphs [0093] and [0123]) taking place in a reaction container (bioreactor) (‘618, Paragraphs [0103], [0111], and [0113]).
Further regarding Claim 5, the limitations “and subsequent to step (c), if needed followed by a step of further hardening of the extruded elongated structure, the reaction container is filled with culturing growth media and the elongated structures are used for growing meat cells seeded onto said structures and/or already contained in said paste” are optional limitations by virtue of the phrase “if needed” that are not required to be taught by the prior art combination. Nevertheless, Forgacs et al. discloses the reaction container being filled with culturing growth media (‘618, Paragraph [0103]). Le Paih et al. discloses after the extrusion step hardening the extruded elongated structure (‘032, Paragraph [0087]) wherein the reaction container is filled with culturing growth media (gelling agent) (‘032, Paragraph [0085]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, Connelly et al. discloses the paste is extruded through the extrusion plate (first plate 300) and the adjacent attachment plate (second plate 400) into a space downstream of the adjacent attachment plate (second plate 400) (‘417, Paragraph [0047]). Treharne discloses slowing down the extrusion and hardening paste located in the space by flooding the space downstream of the attachment plate with a hardening bath (heat coagulated surface) (‘803, Column 4, lines 43-54) followed by continued extrusion of the paste through the extrusion plate (plate 27) while increasing the distance between the extrusion plate (plate 27) and the adjacent plate (plunger 15) (‘803, Column 3, lines 35-49) under formation of the elongated structure between the nozzle openings (‘803, Column 12, lines 24-44) and stopping the distancing and extrusion and hardening the paste in the form of elongated structures in the space between the two nozzle plates (‘803, Column 3, lines 35-49). Le Paih et al. discloses the hardening bath comprising divalent cations (calcium) to form a hardened (strengthen) gel that is immobilized on the attachment plate (‘032, Paragraph [0020]). Culture media is then disposed in the space between the space (returning the plunger to its initial position prior to refilling the cavity) (‘803, Column 3, lines 56-67). Forgacs et al. also discloses disposing culture media in the space (‘618, Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 7, Forgacs et al. discloses the paste being made from mammalian cells or crustaceous cells (‘618, Paragraph [0011]) wherein the cell culture is concentrated by a particular cell suspension to a desired cell concentration/density (‘618, Paragraph [0081]). Le Paih et al. discloses the paste comprising at least one polysaccharide (starch) (‘032, Paragraph [0021]) that can form a solidified gel by the action of divalent cations (calcium) (‘032, Paragraph [0029]) wherein the calcium is dissolved in water (‘032, Paragraph [0086]). The hardening bath comprises calcium ions (‘032, Paragraph [0087]). The hardening bath is buffered to a pH of about 3.0 to 6.0 (‘032, Paragraph [0018]), which overlaps the claimed pH ranging from 6 to 8. Le Paih et al. also discloses the hardening bath comprising a protein crosslinking agent (‘032, Paragraph [0032]) for reducing the weight loss of the gelling material (‘032, Paragraph [0060]). Although Forgacs et al. does not explicitly state the concentration of cells in the paste ranging from 0-300 billion cells per L of water and Le Paih et al. does not explicitly state the concentration in the paste of the divalent cation of calcium being 0.01-200 g per L of water, Le Paih et al. discloses the calcium salt being used in the liquid strengthening agent which calcium salt has a positive effect on the strength of the gelling agent, which strengthening agent has further positive effect on the adherence of the viscous gelling agent to the food particles (‘032, Paragraph [0029]) and that a decrease in the concentration of calcium would weaken the strength of the casing comprising the viscous gelling agent (‘032, Paragraph [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Forgacs et al. and adjust the concentration of cells and the concentration of the divalent cations in the form of calcium salt in the gel of the paste since differences in the concentration of cells and the concentration of the divalent cations will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of cells and concentration of the divalent cations is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of divalent cation used in the polysaccharide that can form a solidified gel based upon the desired degree of adherence of the viscous gelling agent to the food particles as taught by Le Paih et al. (‘032, Paragraph [0029]) and to provide a good balance between the taste of the food product and the strength of the buffer (‘032, Paragraph [0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also adjust the concentration of cells in the paste based upon the desired consistency of the cell paste (‘618, Paragraph [0081]).
Further regarding Claim 7, the limitations “optionally one or more proteins in a concentration in the paste in the range of 0-500 g per L of component (D)” are optional limitations that are not required to be taught by the prior art combination.
Regarding Claim 8, Connelly et al. discloses the two nozzle plates (first plate 300, second plate 400) being mechanically oscillated relative to each other during culturing (‘032, Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 14, Forgacs et al. discloses the manufacturing of a consumer cultured meat product (‘618, Paragraphs [0011] and [0013]) using the corresponding elongated structure (‘618, Paragraph [0012]) in combination with fat based components including vegetable fat or animal fat based components and its derivatives (fatty acids) (‘618, Paragraphs [0071]-[0072]) and connective tissue components derived from cultured connective tissue (‘618, Paragraph [0052]).
Further regarding Claim 14, the claim recites the phrase “and/or” which indicates that the other limitations are optional limitations so long as at least one of the limitations of the claim are disclosed by the prior art. Therefore, the limitations with respect to the structuring agents are optional limitations since Forgacs et al. teaches that other limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Connelly et al. discloses the paste being extruded through the extrusion plate (first plate 300) with the at least one nozzle opening (first pattern of apertures 302) and at least partly through the adjacent attachment plate (second plate 400) into a space downstream of the adjacent attachment plate (second plate 400) (‘417, Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 17, Le Paih et al. discloses the paste in the space between the plates being immersed in a hardening bath comprising divalent cations (calcium) during the extrusion step (‘032, Paragraph [0032]) or after the extrusion step (‘032, Paragraph [0087]).
Further regarding Claim 17, the limitations “or an acidic bath or a bath with a temperature different from the gel paste including a hardening bath comprising divalent cations” are optional limitations by virtue of the term “or” that is not required to be taught by the prior art. Nevertheless, Le Paih et al. also discloses an acidic bath including divalent cations (calcium) (‘032, Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding Claim 18, Connelly et al. discloses the attachment plate (second plate 400) being a plate with nozzle openings (second pattern of apertures 402) aligned to nozzle openings (first pattern of apertures 302) of the nozzle plate (first plate 300) (‘417, FIG. 4) (‘417, Paragraph [0041]).
Further regarding Claim 18, the recitation of the phrase “and/or” indicates that the other limitations of Claim 18 are optional limitations that do not need to be met by the prior art since the prior art combination renders obvious the limitations “and/or wherein the attachment plate is a plate with nozzle openings aligned to nozzle openings of the nozzle plate.”
Regarding Claim 20, Forgacs et al. discloses the paste being made from mammalian cells or crustaceous cells (‘618, Paragraph [0011]) wherein the cell culture is concentrated by a particular cell suspension to a desired cell concentration/density (‘618, Paragraph [0081]). Le Paih et al. discloses the paste comprising at least one polysaccharide (starch) (‘032, Paragraph [0021]) that can form a solidified gel by the action of divalent cations (calcium) (‘032, Paragraph [0029]) wherein the calcium is dissolved in water (‘032, Paragraph [0086]). The hardening bath comprises calcium ions (‘032, Paragraph [0087]). The hardening bath is buffered to a pH of about 3.0 to 6.0 (‘032, Paragraph [0018]), which overlaps the claimed pH ranging from 6 to 8. Le Paih et al. also discloses the hardening bath comprising a protein crosslinking agent (‘032, Paragraph [0032]) for reducing the weight loss of the gelling material (‘032, Paragraph [0060]) wherein the crosslinking agent is citric acid (‘032, Paragraph [0020]). Although Forgacs et al. does not explicitly state the concentration of cells in the paste ranging from 0-300 billion cells per L of water and Le Paih et al. does not explicitly state the concentration in the paste of the divalent cation of calcium being 0.01-200 g per L of water, Le Paih et al. discloses the calcium salt being used in the liquid strengthening agent which calcium salt has a positive effect on the strength of the gelling agent, which strengthening agent has further positive effect on the adherence of the viscous gelling agent to the food particles (‘032, Paragraph [0029]) and that a decrease in the concentration of calcium would weaken the strength of the casing comprising the viscous gelling agent (‘032, Paragraph [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Forgacs et al. and adjust the concentration of cells and the concentration of the divalent cations in the form of calcium salt in the gel of the paste since differences in the concentration of cells and the concentration of the divalent cations will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of cells and concentration of the divalent cations is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of divalent cation used in the polysaccharide that can form a solidified gel based upon the desired degree of adherence of the viscous gelling agent to the food particles as taught by Le Paih et al. (‘032, Paragraph [0029]) and to provide a good balance between the taste of the food product and the strength of the buffer (‘032, Paragraph [0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also adjust the concentration of cells in the paste based upon the desired consistency of the cell paste (‘618, Paragraph [0081]).
Further regarding Claim 20, the limitations “optionally one or more proteins in a concentration in the paste in the range of 0-500 g per L of component (D)” are optional limitations that are not required to be taught by the prior art combination.
Further regarding Claim 20, the limitations “wherein if transglutaminase is used it is comprised in an amount of 1-2000 U per mL of crosslinking bag and wherein crosslinking can be performed at a temperature in the range of 20-45°C for a time span in the range of 10-120 min or 30-90 min” are optional limitations by virtue of the terms “if” and “can be” and are therefore not required to be taught by the prior art combination.
Regarding Claim 21, Connelly et al. discloses the two nozzle plates (first plate 300, second plate 400) being mechanically oscillated relative to each other for stimulating and influencing the growth process in the structures during culturing (‘032, Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 26, Forgacs et al. discloses the manufacturing of a consumer cultured meat product (‘618, Paragraphs [0011] and [0013]) using the corresponding elongated structures (‘618, Paragraph [0012]) in combination with fat based components including vegetable fat or animal fat based components and its derivatives (fatty acids) (‘618, Paragraphs [0071]-[0072]) and connective tissue components derived from cultured connective tissue (‘618, Paragraph [0052]) wherein the cellular suspension is compacted to form fiber bundles compacted bundle like meat pieces (‘618, Paragraph [0081]).
Further regarding Claim 26, the claim recites the phrase “and/or” which indicates that the other limitations are optional limitations so long as at least one of the limitations of the claim are disclosed by the prior art. Therefore, the limitations with respect to the structuring agents and cultured fibroblast and/or chondrocytes are optional limitations since Forgacs et al. teaches that other limitations of the claim.
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forgacs et al. US 2014/0093618 in view of McIsaac et al. US 6,290,483, Connelly et al. US 2012/0228417, Le Paih et al. US 2015/0157032, and Treharne US 4,280,803 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Soucy et al. US 2011/0151083.
Regarding Claims 9 and 22, Forgacs et al. modified with McIsaac et al., Connelly et al., Le Paih et al., and Treharne is silent regarding the extrusion step through the extrusion plate while increasing the distance between the extrusion plate and the adjacent attachment plate taking place with a drawing factor defined as the ratio of the ejection speed to the distancing speed of at least 1.1, at least 1.5, or at least 2.
Soucy et al. discloses a method of extruding food products (‘803, Paragraph [0037]) wherein foods having different viscosities are extruded (‘803, Paragraph [0039]) using a movable attachment plate (piston) that is variable speed (‘083, Paragraph [0041]) wherein expansion rate is dependent on piston speed and nozzle orifice size (‘083, Paragraph [0098]) wherein there is an optimum extrusion flow rate for any particular die size such that the size of the die is selected to optimize discharge speed (‘083, Paragraph [0106]).
Both modified Forgacs et al. and Soucy et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of extruding food products. Soucy et al. does not explicitly state the claimed drawing factor ratio of ejection speed to distancing speed but establishes that there is an optimum extrusion flow rate for any particular die size such that the size of the die is selected to optimize discharge speed (‘083, Paragraph [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the drawing factor ratio of ejection speed to distancing speed of modified Forgacs et al. since differences in the drawing factor ratio of ejection speed to distancing speed will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such drawing factor ratio of ejection speed to distancing speed is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the ejection speed of the drawing factor ratio of modified Forgacs et al. based upon the particular die size which is influenced by the optimal discharge speed of the food as taught by Soucy et al. (‘083, Paragraph [0106]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al. US 2020/0245658 discloses a method of producing a cultured meat product comprising a scaffold comprising an electrospun polymer fiber and a population of cells comprising the steps of preparing the scaffold, placing the scaffold in a bioreactor, adding the population of cells to the bioreactor, culturing the population of cells in the bioreactor containing the scaffold for a period of time thereby forming the cultured meat product, and removing the cultured meat product from the bioreactor wherein the cultured meat product is configured to mimic the taste, texture, size, shape, and/or topography of a traditional slaughtered meat (‘658, Paragraph [0004]).
Scionti US 2021/0345643 discloses a method of manufacturing an elongated structure (‘643, Paragraph [0100]) for the fabrication of cultivated meat replacer (‘643, Paragraph [0016]).
Dariani WO 2023/081192 discloses a method and composition for production of cultured meat using scaffold seeding from stem cells taken from nonhuman mammals which stem cels are grown or cultured in the laboratory using bioreactors to high densities followed by differentiation to somatic cells (‘192, Page 7, lines 7-21).
Lavon et al. US 2022/0007696 discloses a cultured meat/clean meat or cell based meat or cultivated meat having sensory properties of color, taste, and aroma at least resembling whole animal derived meat and improved nutritional value (‘696, Paragraph [0001]).
Lavon et al. US 2023/0407224 discloses a method of making cultured meat food product (‘224, Paragraph [0001]) comprising using a scaffold unit comprising a plurality of extruded scaffolds (‘224, Paragraph [0172]).
Savir et al. US 2020/0100525 discloses a cultured meat containing hybrid food (‘525, Paragraph [0001]) wherein cultured meat is also called synthetic meat, cell cultured meat, clean meat, and in vitro meat, and is grown in cell culture instead of inside animal (‘525, Paragraph [0003]).
Dariani et al. US 2025/0084378 discloses a method for the isolation, culture expansion, and differentiation of nonhuman mammalian umbilical cord and placenta derived stem cells, compositions of these cells, and methods for use of these cells in production of cultured meat (‘378, Paragraph [0002]).
Vein US 2005/0010965 discloses a method of producing and harvesting tissue engineered meat products (‘965, Paragraph [0002]).
Kaplan et al. US 2023/0287317 discloses a cultured tissue and bioreactor system and method for production thereof (‘317, Paragraph [0002]) wherein current bioreactors for cultured meat production focuses on increasing cell density via increased surface area with internal plates of suspension particles and optimizing nutrient flow of oxygen and glucose (‘317, Paragraph [0005]).
Kaplan et al. US 2023/0284662 discloses a cultured tissue and bioreactor system and method of production thereof (‘662, Paragraph [0002]) wherein current bioreactors for cultured meat production focuses on increasing cell density via increased surface area with internal plates of suspension particles and optimizing nutrient flow of oxygen and glucose (‘662, Paragraph [0005]).
Benton et al. US 2024/0124817 discloses a method of using a pipe based bioreactor for producing comestible meat products wherein the bioreactor comprises plates (‘817, Paragraph [0062]).
Chancellor et al. US 2006/0121006 discloses a method of making meat containing products suitable for consumption by humans using large scale culturing methods for proliferating the cells prior to their incorporation into said products (‘006, Paragraph [0002]) comprising a cell culturing step using bioreactors including any incubator containing multiple culture flasks having surface areas (‘006, Paragraph [0012]).
Vein US 6,835,390 discloses a method for producing tissue engineering meat for consumption.
Van Eelen et al. US 2006/0029922 discloses industrial production of meat from in vitro cell cultures.
Nahmias US 2020/0080050 discloses a system and method for growing cells in vitro using a bioreactor to form cultured meat products
Benton et al. US 2024/0124816 discloses a pipe based bioreactors for producing comestible meat products.
Leung et al. US 2021/0401007 discloses an apparatus and system for preparing a meat product wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of substrates arranged in a parallel plate configuration adjacent to each other that allows multilayered cell sheets to be formed in the apparatus.
Vein WO 2006/041429 discloses a method for producing an engineered meat product comprising muscle cells grown ex vivo and attached to a support structure comprising a plate (‘429, Paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) and a membrane (‘429, Paragraph [0012]) wherein the muscle cells are cultured in bioreactors with static, stirred, or dynamic flow conditions using a bioreactor which produces greater volume of cells and allows greater control over the flow of nutrients, gases, metabolites, and regulatory molecules and also provides physical and mechanical signals such as compression to stimulate cells to produce specific biomolecules (‘429, Paragraph [0015]).
Chin et al. US 2022/0025310 discloses a bioreactor comprising a tissue culture holder configured to hold food grade scaffold or a layer of extracellular matrix accommodating cell growth thereon wherein the tissue culture holder is a supporting tray or porous plate including at least one porous which allows medium flow.
Ericsson US 2014/0065687 discloses a bioreactor system utilizing biostiumlation devices for growth of algae and other biomass (‘687, Paragraph [0002]).
Fox US 2006/0196886 discloses a multiple dispenser assembly including a nozzle having a plurality of beverage concentrate and diluent inlets and discharge outlets.
Lewis et al. US 2018/0133670 discloses a microfluidic active mixing nozzle for 3D printing of viscoelastic inks (‘670, Paragraph [0003]) wherein mixing fluids at low Reynolds number is fundamental for a broad range of scientific and industrial applications and 3D printing is a powerful fabrication technique to fabricate composite materials with added functionality such as heterogenous hydrogel scaffolds, cell laden tissue constructs (‘670, Paragraph [0029]).
Rutz et al. US 2015/0084232 discloses a hydrogel precursor solution and extrudable composition comprising crosslinked hydrogels for printing 3D objects such as cell growth scaffolds and methods for culturing cells and growing tissues using the cell growth scaffolds (‘232, Paragraph [0005]).
Ratcliffe US 4,171,668 discloses an apparatus for forming a fibrous and layered structure
Mellott US 2019/0241849 discloses an expandable substrate for cell culture (‘849, Paragraph [0002]) wherein the cell culture substrate is made using various methods where various substrates are molded, cast, or assembly by various iterative forming processes including extrusion in which a material is forced or pushed through an opening or nozzle to create an object with a fixed cross sectional profile such as a fiber (‘849, Paragraph [0046]) wherein other additive manufacturing processes for expandable cell culture substrates includes the use of 3D printing including extruding a polymer out of a predefined nozzle such as a 100 µm diameter nozzle and layering the polymer in a predefined shape wherein the here dimensional structure of the expandable cell culture substrate is formed and manufactured according to custom parameters (‘849, Paragraph [0051]).
Forgacs et al. US 2013/0029008 discloses an engineered comestible meat comprising a plurality of layers wherein each layer is bioprinted and comprises non-human myocytes and non-human endothelial cells wherein the myocytes are aligned relative to each other or aligned relative to a layer of the meat (‘008, Paragraph [0011]) wherein a multicellular body is fabricated from a cell paste containing a plurality of living cells or with a desired cell density and viscosity and the cell paste is shaped into a desired shape (‘008, Paragraph [0080]) wherein the cell paste is produced by mixing a plurality of living cells with a tissue culture medium and compacting the living cells by centrifugation (‘008, Paragraph [0082]) wherein the cell paste comprises cell suspension compounds to lend extrusion properties required wherein the compounds include collagen, hydrogels, Matrigel, nanofibers, and gelatin (‘008, Paragraph [0081]) wherein the plurality of multicellular bodies has an elongate shape with a square, rectangular, triangular, or other non circular cross sectional shape (‘008, Paragraph [0012]).
Feibleman et al. US 12,382,966 discloses an extruder system comprising at least one extruder comprising a barrel to contain and pass and extrudable material, a piston assembly comprising a piston structured to fit at least partially within the barrel (‘966, Column 3, lines 17-37) and a method of extruding meat material and/or CBM (‘966, Column 4, lines 10-41) wherein the material comprises at least a first layer and a second layer stacked together wherein the first layer comprises at least a first material arranged in a first configuration and the second layer comprising at least a second material arranged in a second configuration wherein the material is prepared as desired, e.g. in particular patterns and/or stacked layers through extrusion (‘966, Column 4, lines 42-55) wherein the food product comprises any extrudable food based material including plant matter, meat or components thereof including cell cultured meat, additives, excipients, carriers, binders, and/or nutritional additives wherein the material comprises a first muscle cell medium comprising a plurality of muscle fibers (‘966, Column 5, lines 31-44).
Marga et al. US 2015/0079238 discloses an edible microcarrier appropriate for use in forming engineered meat products (‘238, Paragraph [0012]) wherein the edible microcarrier is made by any appropriate process including extrusion of the material forming the edible microcarrier (‘238, Paragraph [0041]).
Walther et al. US 2015/0044334 discloses a system and method for producing an extruded protein product (‘334, Paragraph [0002]) having fibers oriented in a generally parallel orientation (‘334, Paragraph [0017]) which fibers are elongated protein fibers having a density and length adjusted to produce structures similar to different kinds of meat (‘334, Paragraph [0041]) wherein the stream comprising a proteinaceous composition is produced using any appropriate method and equipment using an extruder such as a single screw, twin or triple screw extruder or a ring extruder (‘334, Paragraph [0047]).
Mathews et al. US 4,834,999 discloses a method of coextruding a meat based product wherein the material is coextruded into an elongate billet of consistent shape.
Supran et al. US 3,834,849 discloses a fiber aligning extrusion nozzle.
Moore et al. US 2005/0048180 discloses an apparatus and method for improving the dimensional quality of extruded food products having complex shapes.
Shemer et al. US 6,319,539 discloses a method for the manufacturing of an elongated structure for the fabrication of cultivated meat (elongated food product 20) (‘539, Column 8, lines 17-31) wherein a paste is extruded through an extrusion plate (piston 50) with at least one nozzle opening (opening or forming nozzle 58) (‘539, Column 8, lines 32-48) to make a food product comprising fibers resembling those of meat (‘539, Column 1, lines 53-67) made from a dough to form a simulated meat product of a meat analog (‘539, Column 6, lines 46-64).
Hoffman et al. US 2024/0389617 discloses an extrusion system for a meat analogue featuring marbled meat inclusions (‘617, Paragraph [0002]) using a feed entry port equipped with microchannels with a feed entry port having a width of 5-50 mm (‘617, Paragraph [0028]) of an extrusion device comprising a feed channel and an extrusion plane wherein the feed occurs from the top, bottom, or back of the plate which die exit width ranges from 25 mm to 250 mm (‘617, Paragraph [0076]).
Dano et al. US 2024/0341343 discloses a system of continuous preparation of an extruded food product (food product 1) comprising a die for extrusion of a protein and water rich material (‘343, Paragraph [0002]) wherein the food product is a textured fiber product comprising between 25% and 90% by weight of water and further comprises between 20 and 90% proteins (‘343, Paragraph [0045]) and between 0% and 50% dietary fibers and between 0% and 50% starch wherein the dietary fibers are of plant origin and the starch is of plant origin in the native, pregelled, or modified state (‘343, Paragraph [0047]) wherein a plate (end plate) is disposed in a body (sleeve 10) (‘343, Paragraph [0055]).
Rease US 2023/0157316 discloses a method for mixing cell based meat
Schluter et al. US 2023/0034165 discloses a high moisture extrusion process using a system comprising an extruder to mix ingredient to turn into a protein extrudate, a cooling die to cool the protein extrudate, an interim plate connecting the extruder and the cooling die to add and mix further ingredients and facilitate movement of the protein extrudate and the enhanced extrudate into the cooling die, the interim plates further comprising one or more interim plate inlets to allow entry of the protein extrudate from the extruder into the interim plate, one or more dosing inlets for adding new ingredients to the protein extrudate that exits the extruder and enters the interim plate, the dosing inlets being placed on any location on the interim plate, at least one static mixer, one or more flow channels to facilitate the movement of the extrudate through the interim plate and into one or more channels of the cooling die, and one or more interim plate outlets to allow the flow of the protein extrudate and the enhanced extrudate into the cooling die (‘165, Paragraph [0003]).
Wong US 2025/0248435 discloses a nozzle for a food printer
Lee US 2023/0256466 discloses a package dispensing system for controllably dispensing material from a chub or sausage package (‘466, Paragraph [0002]) wherein the dispensing system comprises a package tube, a piercing nozzle, and a plunger (‘466, Paragraph [0094]) wherein the sausage package includes any cylindrically shaped or sausage shaped casing package containing an extrudable food material paste (‘466, Paragraph [0095]).
Cedergren US 2021/0070532 discloses a discharging device comprising valve parts for dispensing liquid food (‘532, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the discharging device comprises a piston or pressure plate and pushing the piston or pressure plate towards one end (‘532, Paragraph [0054]).
Schnee US 2011/0027401 discloses a food extruder (food extruder 10) comprising a food substance to be extruded (‘401, Paragraph [0017]) and a barrel having an outlet end fitted with a nozzle wherein different nozzles with a tip having a shape defining the cross sectional shape of the extruded food substance wherein the tip defining holes of various shapes are used to produce extrusions of different cross sectional shapes and sizes (‘401, Paragraph [0020]) wherein a paste like food substance is placed into the barrel (‘401, Paragraph [0022]).
Beavers US 5,198,239 discloses a food extruder comprising two plates (inner piston 47, outer piston comprising semicircular halves 49a, 49b).
Ingles US 2005/0220922 discloses a food extruder (cylindrical dough container 23) comprising an extrusion plate (extrusion plate 27) (‘922, Paragraph [0015]) having various different configurations of extrusion openings for making string hopper or other pastas of various selected shapes (‘922, Paragraph [0018]).
Hoekstra-Suurs US 2021/0267258 discloses a co-extruded food product comprising an initial hardening step directly after or during coextrusion of the food product wherein the initial hardening step provides a first initial strength to a coating to facilitate separation of the food product into individual food products by subjecting the strand of food product to a brine solution wherein the brine solution comprises sodium chloride.
Bufton US 2012/0135122 discloses a method of extruding a food paste (‘122, Paragraphs [0055]-[0056]) through an extrusion plate (first plate 12) with at least one nozzle opening (first apertures 18) and at least partly through an adjacent attachment plate (second plate 14) (‘122, FIG. 3) (‘122, Paragraph [0075]) and a plate comprising approximately 130 circular apertures arranged in a series of concentric circles wherein each aperture has the same size and shape and has a diameter of approximately 2.1 mm (‘122, Paragraph [0076]).
Hayward US 5,500,239 discloses a method and apparatus for the manufacture of a pet food product having a fibrous striated structural matrix (‘239, Column 1, lines 9-18) wherein a paste is extruded through an extrusion plate (die plate 37) with at least one nozzle opening (die orifices 49) and at least partly through an adjacent attachment plate (breaker plate 36) (‘239, Column 6, lines 41-49) (‘239, Column 7, lines 5-18) wherein the size of the food product formed by the nozzle opening (orifices 49) is any size desired by the skilled artisan (‘239, Column 8, lines 6-16) which nozzle opening (orifices 49) are sufficient length along the axis of extrusion to promote the final alignment of the fibrous material in the food product mixture (‘239, Column 7, lines 26-32).
Shi et al. US 2023/0084440 discloses a 3d printed freeze dried hydrogel
Knoch et al. US 2022/0203593 discloses a system for cutting an extrudate exiting a cooling die with an outlet portion end for excretion of an extrudate and one or more plates connected to the outlet portion end wherein the plates include a cutting portion to shape the extrudate that flows through the cutting portion wherein the one or more plates are placed in series (‘593, Paragraph [0003]) wherein apertures of an endplate allows connections and several alignment options between different endplates and/or between the endplate and the outlet end of the cooling die via an attachment mechanism to enable several alignment options and orientations between the endplate and a cooling die outlet via the attachment mechanisms (‘593, Paragraph [0072]) wherein the meat analogue industry has moved towards a high moisture extrusion (HME) process that generally involves several standardized steps that may be modified depending on the mixtures, recipes, and ingredients used as well as the desired product outcome wherein the standard process includes feeding and conveying ingredients into an extruder, mixing, heating, and melting these ingredients in the extruder, feeding the mixture into a cooling die which further cools and structures the mixture to achieve and/or maintain the desired meat like texture and excrete it as a final or semifinished product (‘593, Paragraph [0032]).
Denkel et al. US 2022/0132893 discloses a method of making food (‘893, Paragraph [0012]) comprising the steps of extruding a starting material to form a product strand at a perforated plate outlet (‘893, Paragraph [0024]) wherein the perforated plate has openings that are 0.4 to 9 mm wherein the diameter of the openings have the same diameter or different diameters wherein perforated plate extrusion allows a large number of strands to be extruded in parallel to increase production speed wherein different diameters leads to an increase in the packing density in the heap and crosslinking adjusted by fermentation (‘893, Paragraph [0033]) wherein the extrudable mass is a pasty plant based protein containing fiber containing product (‘893, Paragraph [0040]).
Gimmler et al. US 2011/0177191 discloses an apparatus and method for producing a substantially spiral shaped food product wherein the apparatus includes a die defining a plurality of apertures disposed in a circle about a center (‘191, Paragraph [0006]) and an extruder cooperating with a plate (die plate 16) forming one or more exit ports wherein an additional plate is disposed between the extruder and the channeling die plate (‘191, FIG. 2) (‘191, Paragraph [0023]).
Deutsch et al. US 6,258,396 discloses a method of manufacturing an expanded cereal using an extrusion die (‘396, Column 1, lines 5-9) wherein the extruder includes an elongated barrel and more than one extrusion die wherein the barrel has an upstream end and a downstream end wherein the downstream end of the barrel is secured to a front plate provided with an orifice that is in communication with the barrel, the front plate attached to a second plate having an opening in communication with the orifice of the front plate (‘396, Column 2, lines 13-29).
Funahashi US 5,645,872 discloses a method and an apparatus for processing food into a tubular shape comprising a die including a guide plate having a material outlet and a cylindrical feed pein having a water outlet at its center coaxially housed in the material outlet wherein the food is meat or gelatin wherein the guide plate has a first aperture through which the food material is extruded and a feed pin having a second aperture through which gas or liquid is expelled.
Thomas US 9,750,268 discloses an apparatus and method for processing grain material wherein the apparatus comprises a die assembly and forcing the grain material through an extrusion passageway that evenly distributes the grain material into a plurality of orifices thereby producing a high density shaped grain before the grain material exits the die assembly wherein the die body is mounted in a face to face engagement with a first plate part of the die head such that a plurality of third set of holes and a plurality of second set of holes in a second plate part are aligned to each other and connected to provide an extrusion passageway (‘268, FIG. 2A).
Dahlheimer et al. US 2016/0082620 discloses an extrusion head having a perforated plate of a granulating system with a central inflow cone, nozzle channels, and perforated dies of a perforated plate for the extrusion of granulation strands.
Leonardi US 2016/0236202 discloses a meat grinding machine supplied with a kit of interchangeable perforated plates which have respective mutually different perforations to allow a plurality of types of processing with the same machine wherein the difference in perforation generally includes a different diameter of the holes and/or a different shape and/or mutual arrangement thereof (‘202, Paragraph [0010])
Lynch et al. US 4,636,393 discloses a method of preparing acidified meat chunks comprising the steps of extruding a meat paste into discrete agglomerates which are dropped into a coagulating bath which agglomerates are then cooked and acidified by submersion in a hot acid bath.
Park et al. US 2024/0284934 discloses a method of extruding an artificial muscle fiber composition (‘934, Paragraph [0056]) at an ejection speed of 0.02 to 0.04 ml/min from a nozzle (‘934, Paragraph [0041]).
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