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 .
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4, 11, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-13, and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Modified Rejection As Necessitated by the Amendment Filed 02/13/2026
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (US 2018/0077961 A1), hereinafter Kawaguchi, in view of Kodama et al. (Novel soft meals developed by 3D printing. Future Foods 1 (2017): 161-181), hereinafter Kodama.
Regarding Claim 1, Kawaguchi discloses a gelling composition and method of making the gelling composition for preparing a gelatinous food which do not dissolve even when reheated, and retains its original shape even when reheated, wherein the gelling composition comprises a water-soluble polymer capable of forming a thermos-irreversible gel (Abstract). Kawaguchi teaches preparing the inventive gelling composition comprising dextrin, deacylated gellan gum, and xanthan gum, and a similar comparative gelling composition product, which are then dispersed in soup stock or water at an amount of 40 g in 1000 g liquid ([0034]-[0037]; Example 2). Kawaguchi teaches a step of pouring into molds, which would create the 3D shape, and that a reheating step retained the shape (Example 2). Regarding the adhesion, Kawaguchi teaches a mean adhesion energy 100 – 1500 J/m3 [0032].
Regarding the curdlan claimed, Kawaguchi teaches that the gelling composition of the present may comprise curdlan , pectin , CMC or the like as a water - soluble polymer capable of forming a thermos-irreversible gel [0020]. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.
Kawaguchi does not expressly teach the step of ejecting and laminating the gel.
Kodama is in the field of 3D printing food, and also teaches gelled food such as 3D carp jelly (Abstract; Section 4.2.4). Kodama teaches that 3D printers can be classified into lamination methods such as fused deposition modeling (FDM), powder lamination method, inkjet and bathtub stereolithography (Section 2; Figure 1). Kodama teaches that FDM is the most inexpensive and major modeling method wherein the filament is melted by a heater and discharged from a nozzle, so that it is shaped (p. 162, Section 2, 2nd paragraph). Kodama teaches shaping food by filling a syringe with a paste-like material such as bean paste or rice flour cookie and pressing it with a piston to eject the materials (p. 174, Section 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kodama with Kawaguchi and prepare the curdlan dispersion composition and heat irreversible gel according to Kawaguchi, and shape the heat irreversible gel using 3D printing by filling a syringe with the gel and ejecting and laminating. It can be expected that using this technique would lead to uniform and efficient shaping and printing of 3D food. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). As such, Claims 8-10, 15, and 20 are also obvious.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Kodama teaches the use of 3D printer to create different flavors and different shaped gummies, wherein the gummy liquid is squeezed out from the syringe warmed to 70–90° and the gummy is stacked, thereby reading on the feature of adjusting temperature of the curdIan dispersion liquid to 55 to 85°C, and “adjusting…at the time of ejection” (p. 165, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding the recitation of “raw material storage container in Claim 2, how or where one stores the food does not materially affect the method claim. It is the Applicant’s burden to show that the storage is also an integral part of the claim to be considered a patentable feature.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 18, Kawaguchi teaches that the amount of gelling composition may be so adjusted as to provide a mean hardness stress 300 - 20,000 N/m² to the food.
Claims 5, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi in view of Kodama, as applied to Claims 1-3 above, and in view of Mangolim et al. (Of record), hereinafter Mangolim.
Kawaguchi do not teach the claimed viscosity of the gel.
Mangolim describes the morphology and gelation properties of curdlan produced by Agrobacterium sp. IFO 13140 recovered by pre-gelatin and precipitation vs. commercial curdlan (Abstract). Mangolim teaches that the apparent viscosity is stable at temperature up to 55 ˚C (p. 10, last paragraph; Fig. 3). The curdlan produced by Agrobacterium sp. IFO 13140 (pre-gelation method) showed higher viscosity than pre-gelled commercial curdlan (Fig 3A; p. 11, 1st paragraph). Both the apparent viscosity and the G' module of both curdlans exhibited a different behavior as a function of temperature for each concentration employed as they relate to the swelling of curdlan during heating (p. 11, 2nd paragraph). There is an apparent viscosity increase of curdlan dispersions at about 50-55˚C, especially at 80 g L-1, suggesting the beginning of the formation of the thermo-irreversible gels (p. 11, 3rd paragraph; Fig. 3A). At 20 and 40 g/L, the apparent viscosity ranges from 500 to around 8000 mPas, which overlaps with the claimed viscosity (Fig. 3A). Mangolim also teaches that the degree of polymerization of the pre-gelled commercial curdlan is about 45% higher than of the curdlan produced by the microorganism, which explains the lowest gel strength and the decrease in apparent viscosity and G' in low concentration dispersions of the polymer (p. 12, 4th paragraph). Texture parameters including adhesiveness, firmness etc. of yogurt with and without curdlan, and with or without heat treatment were compared by Mangolim (Table 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Mangolim with that of Kawaguchi and get guidance from Mangolim on the source and concentration of curdlan to use based on the desired rheological properties as suited for the application. Obviousness is established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. See MPEP § 2143.01 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi in view of Kodama, as applied to Claims 1-3 above, and in view of Wang et al. (CN 207803427 U, machine translated in IP.com), hereinafter Wang.
Kawaguchi do not teach the aperture. While Kodama teaches discharging the from a nozzle for shaping, it doesn’t teach the aperture size of the nozzle (p. 162, Section 2, 2nd paragraph).
Wang discloses 3D printer print heads for producing dilated food (Abstract). The 3D printer print head includes a printing barrel, discharging gate, locking lid etc. wherein the discharging gate is equipped with mouth 3 that can have different aperture hole size depending on the discharging speed, in the range of 1~5mm (p. 3, 2nd to last paragraph; Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kawaguchi in view of Kodama with Wang, and use a 3D printer equipped with a nozzle wherein the hole size can be optimized depending on the discharging speed, starting with the sizes Wang disclosed. One would have been motivated to change the holes depending on the food product that is being made and the desired shape, and other factors such as speed of discharge.
Response to Remarks:
The crux of Applicant’s argument is based on the amendment. Applicant argues that Horiuchi is silent regarding a three-dimensional shaped food that consists of a heat irreversible gel and that retains a shape even when the three-dimensional shaped food is reheated after being cooled.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment does not rely on Horiuchi for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 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 on (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.
/J.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights