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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 8, table 1, “warner bratzler” should read “Warner Bratzler”.
On page 9, paragraphs [60] and [61], “IKA Malaysisa” appears it should read “IKA Malaysia”.
On page 12, paragraph [82], line 3, “richnessand” should read “richness and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On claim 1, step (a), the recitation of “temperature ranging -2°C to 10°C”, should read “temperature ranging from -2°C to 10°C”, and the recitation of “pressure ranging 10 atm to 15 atm”, should read “pressure ranging from 10 atm to 15 atm”.
Claim 1, step (b), recites “a step of aging the ultrasonicated meat in a refrigerated state (b).”. It appears that the “(b)” after the word “state” is a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: The term “a refrigerated state” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a refrigerated state” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what exact temperature or temperature range is considered “a refrigerated state”.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependance on a base rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu [KR 20170108773 A], in view of Shon [KR 20200126147 A].
Regarding claim 1, Ryu teaches a processing method for aging meat [Ryu, Abstract], comprising:
A step of performing ultrasonication [Ryu, 0036, 0039, Fig.2] on vacuum-packaged meat [Ryu, 0037, Fig.2] at a water temperature [Ryu, 0038, 0040] ranging from 1-3°C [Ryu, 0046], and
A step of aging the ultrasonicated meat in a refrigerated state [Ryu, 0047].
Ryu does not teach a water pressure ranging from 10 atm to 15 atm.
Shon teaches an apparatus and method for aging meat [Shon, Title, Abstract], comprising a step of applying a pressure ranging from 1-100 atm [Shon, 0040] to a meat while being immersed in a liquid and ultrasonicated [Shon, 0033-0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a water pressure ranging from 1-100 atm as taught by Shon, in the method of Ryu, since both are directed to methods of aging meats immersed in liquids while using ultrasonication and pressure, and because Shon teaches that the application of pressure from 1-100 atm shortens the aging process and reduces the amount of additional aging ingredients [Shon, 0037].
Regarding claim 3, Ryu teaches the processing method for aging meat discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but is silent regarding the ultrasonication in the step (a) being performed for 40 minutes to 120 minutes.
Shon teaches the methods and concepts discussed in claim 1 above, wherein the ultrasonication may be performed for (1-24 hors) 60 minutes to 1440 minutes [Shon, 0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform ultrasonication for 60 minutes to 1440 minutes as taught by Shon, in the method of Ryu, because the time of ultrasonication treatment would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization due to various factors of the process such as temperature, pressure, type of meat, and the intensity of the ultrasonic waves, which would promote the aging process and increase meat tenderness (reduction of the bonding strength between the muscles and proteins in the pork) in a short period of time [Shon, 0034].
Regarding claim 4, Ryu teaches the refrigerated state is kept at a temperature of 4-6°C [Ryu, 0047].
Regarding claim 5, Ryu teaches the processing method for aging meat discussed above in claim 1 rejection, where it is known in the art that the aging period is determined by (aging period varies depending on the livestock) the type of meat [Ryu, 0004].
Regarding claims 6-7, Ryu teaches the aging may be performed for (24 hours) 1 day [Ryu, 0047], and further teach that it is known in the art that aging time is performed depending on the type of meat being aged and may be from 2-10 days [0004].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu [KR 20170108773 A], in view of Shon [KR 20200126147 A] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai et al. [CN 110100877 A], hereinafter Cai.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ryu teaches the processing method for aging meat discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but is silent regarding using ultrasonic waves of 2,000 W to 3,000 W.
Cai teaches a method for keeping meat (beef) fresh [Cai, Abstract], particularly matured or preserved (aged) meat [Cai, 0002] comprising a step of applying ultrasonic waves of 2200-2800 W [Cai, 0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply ultrasonic waves of 2200-2800 W as taught by Cai, in the method of modified Ryu, since all are directed to methods of treating preserved or aged meats immersed in liquids while using ultrasonication and pressure and packaged under vacuum, and because Cai teaches that the application of ultrasonic waves of 2200-2800 W aid with meat preservation [Shon, 0017, 0019].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu [KR 20170108773 A], in view of Shon [KR 20200126147 A] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arihara et al. [JP 2020054276 A], hereinafter Arihara.
Regarding claim 8, Ryu teaches the processing method for aging meat discussed above in claim 1 rejection, where it is known in the art that the aging period is determined by (aging period varies depending on the livestock) the type of meat, and may be from 1 day [Ryu, 0047], to 10 days [Ryu, 0004], but does not explicitly teach the aging is performed for 14 days to 28 days.
Arihara teaches a processing method for aging meat [Arihara, Abstract], wherein the aging is performed for 21 days to 25 days [Arihara, claim 2, 0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform aging of the meat for 21 days to 25 days as taught by Arihara, in the method of modified Ryu, because Arihara teach that aging of the meat for 21 days to 25 days is a suitable aging time period from the viewpoint of cost, to keep production costs low [Arihara, 0021].
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu [KR 20170108773 A], in view of Shon [KR 20200126147 A] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [KR 20170120873 A], hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claims 9-12, Ryu teaches the processing method for aging vacuum-packaged meat [Ryu, 0037, Fig.2], further modified Ryu in view of Shon teaches a step of performing an additional aging (second aging) after the first aging (step (b)) [Shon, 0050, 0052], where it is known in the art that the aging process may be a dry aging [Shon, 0005], but are silent regarding a specific step of removing the vacuum packaging, and a specific step of aging in a dry ager after the step (b) “ the first aging” as required by claim 9, wherein the dry ager maintains a temperature of 0°C to 10°C as required by claim 10, wherein the dry ager maintains a humidity of 70% to 90% as required by claim 11, and wherein the step(c) “the dry aging step” is performed for 3 days to 14 days as required by claim 12.
Kim teaches processing method for aging vacuum-packaged meat, wherein the process comprise a step of removing the vacuum packaging and performing additional dry aging in a dry warehouse (equivalent to performing additional aging in a dry ager) after the (step (b) “first aging”) [Kim, 0063, 0070], wherein the dry ager maintains a temperature of 1-2°C, at a humidity of 70-85%, and wherein the step(c) “the dry aging step” is performed for 6-8 days [Kim, 0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the vacuum packaging and performing additional aging in a dry ager after the step (b), at a temperature of 1-2°C, and a humidity of 70-85% for 6-8 days, as taught by Kim, because modified Ryu in view of Shon already teach that it is known in the art to perform dry aging [Shon, 0005], and additional or one or more aging steps [Shon, 0050, 0052], and further because Kim teaches that removing the vacuum packaging and performing an additional dry aging step at the disclosed process parameters (temperature, humidity, aging time) increase the flavor of the meat by directly exposing the meat to the air, thereby reducing the moisture content of the meat [Kim, 0064].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu [KR 20170108773 A], in view of Shon [KR 20200126147 A] as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of further in view of Kim et al. [KR 20170120873 A], hereinafter Kim as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Arihara et al. [JP 2020054276 A], hereinafter Arihara.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ryu teaches the processing method for dry aging meat discussed above in claims 1 and 9, but does not explicitly teach wherein the step (c) is performed for 14 days to 28 days.
Arihara teaches a processing method for aging meat [Arihara, Abstract], wherein the aging is a dry aging method, and is performed for 21 days to 25 days [Arihara, Abstract, claim 1, 0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform dry aging of the meat for 21 days to 25 days as taught by Arihara, in the method of modified Ryu, because Arihara teach that dry aging of the meat for 21 days to 25 days is a suitable aging time period and method from the viewpoint of cost, to keep production costs low [Arihara, 0021], provide aged meats that are highly microbiologically safe [Arihara, 0032], with a high yield, produced in an economically and efficient manner [Arihara, 0034, 0036] and having high palatability [Arihara, 0038].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hagen [US 2980537 A]:
Hagen directed to a method of processing (tenderizing, aging) meat [col.1, l.15; col.2, l.50-72] using ultrasonic waves disclose that to produce uniform tenderness in the meat, it is desirable to subject all of the connective tissues in the meat to a substantially uniform amount of vibrations of sufficient energy to break down the tissues. To achieve this end in the face of the variations existing in meats, the frequency of the vibrations and the positions of the meat relative to the source of the vibrations are adapted to be varied so that all portions of the meat will encounter substantially uniform vibrations. The penetration of the sonic energy into the meat and the intensity distribution within the meat will be a function of the frequency of the vibrations. In general, the higher the frequency, the shorter the penetration. Or the higher frequencies will tend to produce energy distributions short distances within the boundaries of the meat. Lower frequencies, will penetrate deeper into the meat before losing energy. Thus the energy distribution throughout the meat can be controlled by varying the frequency of the vibrations. [col.3, l.19-59].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792