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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinnergardt et al., “A Penetrometer Test to Measure Meat Tenderness” (hereafter Hinnergardt), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 5 January 2024.
As to claim 1: Hinnergardt discloses a food texture measuring apparatus (see figs. 1 and 2 regarding the depicted penetrometer) comprising:
a frame (see figs. 1 and 2 regarding the exterior of the depicted apparatus which is considered to be a frame) in which a power device (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed Allo-Kramer Shear Press) is built;
a stage module (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed plastic base plate), which is connected to the frame and on which a subject is put (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding food samples placed on the plate depicted in fig. 2); and
a probe module (not labeled but see the disclosed “head” in page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL”), which is connected to the frame, located on the stage module and of which a position is changed (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL”; the needles used for testing are placed at different distances and using the stage module in order to carry out the disclosed testing),
wherein the probe module comprises:
a probe plate having a predetermined area (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the plate in which the disclosed needles are disposed);
pins arranged on a bottom surface of the probe plate (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed needles that penetrate a food target and accordingly are considered to be arranged on a bottom surface of the probe plate to carry out the disclosed penetration testing); and
a connector connecting the probe plate and the power device to each other (see fig. 2; the vertically disposed part of the frame is considered to be a connector that connects the probe plate component and the press components to one another),
the probe plate and the pins are integrally displaced (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the needles utilized for the disclosed penetration testing), and
the pins (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed needles) are configured to measure texture of the subject put on the stage module (see page 2, table 1 regarding the results of raw vs cooked which is thus considered to be measuring texture of the subject put on the stage module).
As to claim 7: Hinnergardt discloses the food texture measuring apparatus of claim 1, wherein a plurality of pins are provided (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” which notes that there are a plurality of pins), and the plurality of pins have a predetermined arrangement according to texture patterns of food to be measured “see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” wherein it is noted that there is a predetermined arrangement of pins sufficient to produce a meaningful time-force curve).
As to claim 8: Hinnergardt discloses the food texture measuring apparatus of claim 1, wherein the stage module (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed plastic base plate) comprises a stage plate having a predetermined area (see fig. 2), the stage plate comprises one or more stage holes penetrating the stage plate vertically, and the pins are located in the stage holes (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” which notes that the base plate has holes for the plurality of needles), and when the probe module descends, the pins are capable of being put into the stage holes (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” which notes that the plurality of needles are received in the holes).
As to claim 9: Hinnergardt discloses a food texture measuring method by using a food texture measuring apparatus (see figs. 1 and 2) including a frame (see figs. 1 and 2 regarding the exterior of the depicted apparatus which is considered to be a frame) in which a power device (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed Allo-Kramer Shear Press) is built; a stage module (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed plastic base plate), which is connected to the frame and on which a subject is put (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding food samples placed on the plate depicted in fig. 2); and a probe module (not labeled but see the disclosed “head” in page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL”), which is connected to the frame, located on the stage module and of which a position is changed (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL”; the needles used for testing are placed at different distances and using the stage module in order to carry out the disclosed testing), the food texture measuring method comprising:
a first step of determining a size of a subject (see page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the determined appropriate needles and base plate needed to carry out meaningful time-force curves and thus necessitates a size at least capable of supporting a subject to make said measurements);
a second step of selecting the stage module and the probe module (see page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL”; once a subject has been placed on the base plate and the determined appropriate settings for carrying out the time-force curve measurements occurs, this is considered to constitute selecting the stage module and the probe module);
a third step of installing the selected stage module and probe module at the frame (see page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the determined stage and probe to carry out the disclosed measurements); and
a fourth step of measuring texture of the subject (see page 2, table 1 regarding the results of raw vs cooked which is thus considered to be measuring texture of the subject put on the stage module).
As to claim 10: Hinnergardt discloses the food texture measuring method of claim 9, wherein the third step comprises arranging the stage module (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed plastic base plate) and the probe module (not labeled but see the disclosed “head” in page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL”) so that a center of the stage module and a center of the probe module are arranged to be positioned on a straight line with each other (see page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” - the head portion and base plate portion are aligned with one another to carry out the disclosed time-force curve measurements and are considered to be positioned on a straight line with each other because the pins are aligned at least by virtue of passing through the holes as disclosed).
As to claim 11: Hinnergardt discloses the food texture measuring method of claim 9, wherein the probe module comprises:
a probe plate having a predetermined area (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the plate in which the disclosed needles are disposed);
pins arranged on a bottom surface of the probe plate (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed needles that penetrate a food target and accordingly are considered to be arranged on a bottom surface of the probe plate to carry out the disclosed penetration testing),
the stage module (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed plastic base plate) comprises a stage plate having a predetermined area (see fig. 2), the stage plate comprises one or more stage holes penetrating the stage plate vertically, the pins are located in the stage holes (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” which notes that the base plate has holes for the plurality of needles), and when the probe module descends, the pins are capable of being put into the stage holes (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” which notes that the plurality of needles are received in the holes), and
the fourth step comprises lowering the probe module and allowing the pins to penetrate the subject and the pins to be put into the stage holes (see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding a food sample being penetrated by the pins when they pass through the stage holes to create the disclosed time-force curves).
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.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinnergardt et al., “A Penetrometer Test to Measure Meat Tenderness” (hereafter Hinnergardt), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 5 January 2024 in view of Aubort EP 1219947 A1 (hereafter Aubort), prior art of record as being the EP equivalent of DE 60031431, reference 1 listed under “Foreign Patent Documents” on the IDS filed 24 September 2024.
As to claim 2: Hinnergardt teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a frame (see figs. 1 and 2 regarding the exterior of the depicted apparatus which is considered to be a frame), a stage module (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the disclosed plastic base plate), and a probe module (not labeled but see the disclosed “head” in page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL”), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the frame comprises:
a base;
a head disposed on the base; and
a neck connecting the base and the head to each other and having a predetermined height,
the stage module is connected to the base, and
the probe module is connected to the head.
However, Aubort teaches an apparatus (see fig. 3) with a frame that comprises:
a base (18; see fig. 3 and ¶ 24);
a head (13; see fig. 3 and ¶ 24) disposed on the base (see ¶ 24; the head 13 can move along rail 12 and accordingly is capable of being disposed on the base 18); and
a neck (12; see fig. 3) connecting the base and the head to each other (see fig. 3) and having a predetermined height (see fig. 3),
the stage module is connected to the base (see fig. 3; when considered in combination with fig. 2 of Hinnergardt, the stage module therein is considered to be connected to the base 18), and
the probe module is connected to the head (see fig. 3; when considered in combination with fig. 2 of Hinnergardt, the probe module therein is considered to be connected to the head 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hinnergardt’s apparatus to include a base, a head disposed on the base, a neck connecting the base and the head to each other and having a predetermined height, the stage module is connected to the base, and the probe module is connected to the head because this design is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of carrying out consistency measurements of various products at the same time, as suggested in ¶ 36 of Aubort, and therefore would serve to improve the flexibility and throughput of Hinnergardt’s apparatus by allowing several samples to be tested upon in a shorter amount of time.
As to claim 3: Hinnergardt teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a frame (see figs. 1 and 2 regarding the exterior of the depicted apparatus which is considered to be a frame), a probe plate (not labeled but see page 2 under heading “EXPERIMENTAL” regarding the plate in which the disclosed needles are disposed), and a probe module (not labeled but see the disclosed “head” in page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL”), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the frame comprises a guide beam extending in at least one direction, the probe module comprises a guide block connecting the probe plate and the guide beam to each other, and displacement of the probe module is guided by the guide beam and the guide block.
However, Aubort teaches a frame (see fig. 3 regarding the exterior of the apparatus that is considered to be a frame) that comprises a guide beam (12; see fig. 3 and ¶ 24) extending in at least one direction (see fig. 3), and further comprising a guide block (the block which connects the guide beam 12 and the support 13 as depicted in fig. 3) connecting a probe plate (18; see fig. 3 and ¶ 24) and the guide beam to each other (see fig. 3), and displacement of the probe module is guided by the guide beam and the guide block (see ¶ 24 regarding motion along the guide column 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hinnergardt’s frame such that the frame comprises a guide beam extending in at least one direction, the probe module comprises a guide block connecting the probe plate and the guide beam to each other, and displacement of the probe module is guided by the guide beam and the guide block because this design is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of carrying out consistency measurements of various products at the same time, as suggested in ¶ 36 of Aubort, and therefore would serve to improve the flexibility and throughput of Hinnergardt’s apparatus by allowing several samples to be tested upon in a shorter amount of time.
As to claim 4: Hinnergardt as modified by Aubort teaches the food texture measuring apparatus of claim 2, wherein the probe module (not labeled but see the disclosed “head” in Hinnergardt page 2, under heading “EXPERIMENTAL”) is connected to the head (13 of Aubort; see fig. 2 of Hinnergardt in view of fig. 3 of Aubort), and a connection position of the probe module and the head is optionally changed (because each of the connection position of the probe module and head position being changed is optional and the combination of Hinnergardt and Aubort is considered to meet all of the other limitations recited in the claim, said combination is considered to teach all of the required features of the instant claim).
References Cited but not Relied Upon
As to references cited but not relied upon:
Gorey et al. US PG-PUB 2022/0236161 A1 discloses a method and system for determining viscosity information and fluids and appears pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a food texture measuring apparatus wherein the probe module comprises a linkage part connecting the head and the connector to each other and a position where the connector is connected to the linkage part and a position where the head is connected to the linkage part are changed, when considered in combination with the other limitations of the instant claim and those of parent claims 1, 2, and 4.
As to claim 6: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a food texture measuring apparatus wherein the frame comprises a connection jig connected to the base, a plurality of connection jigs are provided, a distance between the plurality of connection jigs is change, and (emphasis added) the stage module is connected to the connection jig, when considered in combination with the other limitations of the instant claim and with those of parent claims 1 and 2.
As to claim 12: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a food texture measuring method with a probe module that comprises a linkage part connecting the head and the connector to each other, the linkage part is configured in such a way that a position where the connector is connected to the linkage part and a position where the head is connected to the linkage part are changed, and (emphasis added) the third step comprises changing a position of the probe module by using the linkage part, when considered in combination with the other limitations as recited in the instant and those of parent claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855